Appeal granted due to incorrect assessment year for unexplained cash investment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of unexplained cash investment for the assessment year 2009-10 due to the incorrect assessment year for the cash seized from the locker. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning additions with the correct assessment year based on the timing of the search and seizure operations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against addition of unexplained investment in cash
2. Validity of adding cash seized from locker in a different assessment year

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 6,92,665 for unexplained investment in cash for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the explanation and facts provided regarding the source of the cash. The Assessing Officer had added the cash seized from the locker of the Assessee, but the appellant argued that the cash pertained to the assessment year 2011-12, not 2009-10. The appellant sought to admit additional grounds based on legal issues, which were allowed following the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC Vs. CIT.

2. The search and seizure operation revealed cash in the locker of the assessee, leading to the addition of Rs. 6,92,665 as undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 153A for the assessment year 2009-10, but the cash found was related to the assessment year 2011-12. The appellant argued that any addition for cash found in the locker should correspond to the assessment year in which the search took place. The Tribunal noted that the search occurred in the previous year 2010-11, making the addition for the cash found in the locker inappropriate for the assessment year 2009-10. As per legal principles, the addition should have been made in the assessment year 2011-12. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition for the year under consideration, allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of unexplained cash investment for the assessment year 2009-10 due to the incorrect assessment year for the cash seized from the locker. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning additions with the correct assessment year based on the timing of the search and seizure operations.

---