Tribunal Partly Allows Appeals; Fully Allows 2018-19 Due to Procedural Lapses and Invalid Assessment Notice.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18, sustaining specific additions based on evidence and admissions by the appellant. However, the appeal for AY 2018-19 was fully allowed due to procedural lapses, as the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2), rendering the assessment invalid. The tribunal found that additions based on third-party statements without cross-examination violated principles of natural justice and were unsustainable. Additionally, it required explicit specification of relevant sections for substantive additions, limiting the appellant's onus under Section 68.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of assessment proceedings in the absence of incriminating material.
2. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance for AY 2018-19.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Additions based on third-party statements without cross-examination.
5. Substantive additions in the hands of the appellant without specifying relevant sections.
6. Quantum of additions related to credit entries, cash deposits, and other credits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Proceedings:

The appellant challenged the validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153A, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search. However, the tribunal found that several incriminating materials were indeed seized, including blank letterheads, cheques, and notes indicating undisclosed income. The tribunal upheld the assessments, referencing the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which states that incriminating material is not a prerequisite for assessments post-search.

2. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance for AY 2018-19:

The appellant contested the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for AY 2018-19, arguing that the assessment was framed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The tribunal found that the AO acted prematurely by treating the return as invalid before the expiry of the period allowed for e-verification. It was held that the AO violated statutory provisions by not issuing a notice under Section 143(2), rendering the assessment invalid. The tribunal quashed the assessment for AY 2018-19 on these grounds.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant argued that the assessment orders were passed in a hurried manner, preventing them from approaching the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's efforts to settle the issues and noted that the assessments were completed abruptly. However, it concluded that the assessments were framed in accordance with the law, and the appellant had opportunities during remand proceedings to defend their case. The tribunal did not find a violation of natural justice but suggested considering the voluntary income intended for disclosure.

4. Additions Based on Third-Party Statements Without Cross-Examination:

The appellant contended that the additions were based on third-party statements recorded by the investigation wing without providing cross-examination opportunities. The tribunal noted that the statements were retracted and unsupported by evidence. It emphasized that the statements alone could not substantiate the additions, as they were recorded without independent verification and cross-examination. The tribunal found that the reliance on these statements violated principles of natural justice, rendering the additions unsustainable.

5. Substantive Additions Without Specifying Relevant Sections:

The appellant argued that the additions were made without specifying the relevant sections under which they were invoked. The tribunal observed that the AO did not establish the appellant as the de-facto owner of the bank accounts in question. It concluded that the onus to explain credit entries should remain confined to the appellant's accounts. The tribunal held that without establishing ownership, the additions could not be sustained, and the appellant's onus under Section 68 was limited.

6. Quantum of Additions:

- Credit Entries from Nagaland Entities: The tribunal found that only Rs. 23.98 Crores pertained to the appellant, while the rest were unrelated to the appellant. It sustained an addition of Rs. 5.44 Crores, representing undisclosed consultancy income, and deleted the remaining additions.

- Cash Deposits: The tribunal accepted the cash flow statements provided by the appellant, which incorporated declared income under IDS 2016 and proposed disclosures. It sustained an addition of Rs. 5.35 Crores as undisclosed income and deleted the rest.

- Other Credit Entries: The tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 88.50 Lacs due to lack of supporting evidence, while deleting the remainder as non-income entries.

Conclusion:

The appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 were partly allowed, with specific additions sustained based on the appellant's admissions and evidence. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was allowed on legal grounds due to procedural lapses.

---