Appeal allowed for verification of seized material date, potentially invalidating assessment for a previous year.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the date of handing over of the seized material. If confirmed that the material was handed over in F.Y 2010-11, the assessment for A.Y 2004-05 would be invalid. The Tribunal did not address the remaining grounds of appeal due to the core issue being remanded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Insufficient opportunity of being heard under Section 144 r.w.s 153C.
2. Addition of Rs. 17,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
3. Addition of Rs. 2,57,350 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
4. Validity of assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s 153C for A.Y 2004-05.
5. Validity of additions without incriminating material under Section 153C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Insufficient Opportunity of Being Heard:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) under Section 144 r.w.s 153C without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The appellant argued that the A.O did not provide adequate chances to present his case, which led to an unfair assessment.

2. Addition of Rs. 17,00,000 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 17,00,000, which was a loan taken from M/S Divyasagar Restaurant (Prop: Mrs. Meera D. Shetty), as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, but the appellant argued that the amount should not have been added to his total income.

3. Addition of Rs. 2,57,350 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The appellant also contested the addition of Rs. 2,57,350, which was cash deposited in PMC Bank, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, but the appellant contended that the amount should not have been included in his total income.

4. Validity of Assessment Order Under Section 144 r.w.s 153C for A.Y 2004-05:
The appellant raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed under Section 144 r.w.s 153C. The appellant argued that the proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 153A for A.Y 2004-05 could not have been legally initiated. The Tribunal noted that the six assessment years for which assessment/reassessment could be made under Section 153C should be construed with reference to the date of handing over of the assets/documents by the A.O of the searched person to the A.O of the assessee. Since the reasons for assuming jurisdiction were recorded on 21.12.2010, it was inferred that the actual handing over of the seized material must have taken place in the financial year 2010-11, relevant to A.Y 2011-12. Consequently, the A.O had no jurisdiction to frame assessment for A.Y 2004-05, rendering the assessment order non est.

5. Validity of Additions Without Incriminating Material:
The appellant argued that the additions made under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on any incriminating material on record. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground of appeal, noting that it involved a question of law emerging from the facts available on record.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the A.O for verification of the date of handing over of the seized material. If it is confirmed that the material was handed over in F.Y 2010-11, the assessment for A.Y 2004-05 would be invalid. The Tribunal did not address the remaining grounds of appeal due to the core issue being remanded. The order was pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2017.

---