Incriminating Material Requirement: additions after search require specific incriminating material; seized documents govern undisclosed profit computation.

Additions in a completed assessment following a search are unsustainable unless incriminating material specific to that assessment year is found; accordingly, the challenge to additions for A.Y. 2016-17 was dismissed in favour of the assessee. Where seized documents contain year-wise entries of unaccounted receipts and expenses, those seized figures constitute the primary basis for computing undisclosed profit and should be adopted over a uniform estimated gross profit percentage; the Tribunal directed adoption of seized-document computations for the later assessment years. Expenditure on repairs and depreciation of a director's farmhouse was allowed to the extent of proven business use; the disallowance was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additions made for Assessment Year 2016-17 in a completed assessment pursuant to search could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search; (ii) Whether undisclosed profit for the assessment years should be determined by applying an estimated uniform gross profit percentage or be computed adopting actual figures from seized documents; (iii) Whether expenditure on repairs and depreciation of the director's farmhouse is deductible as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether additions made for A.Y. 2016-17 in a completed assessment pursuant to search could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the record of the search and the assessment file and noted that no incriminating material corresponding to A.Y. 2016-17 was found during the course of search. The statutory requirement under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the binding precedent cited (Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd) were applied to determine whether additions in a completed assessment can be made in absence of incriminating material relating to that assessment year.

Conclusion: The additions for A.Y. 2016-17 are not sustainable in the absence of incriminating material; the revenue's grounds in respect of A.Y. 2016-17 are dismissed (decision in favour of the assessee).

Issue (ii): Whether undisclosed profit for the assessment years should be determined by applying an estimated uniform gross profit percentage or be computed adopting actual figures from seized documents.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the seized documents which contained detailed entries of unaccounted receipts, purchases, salaries, business promotion expenses and other business-related expenses. The assessee submitted revised computations derived from those seized documents. The Tribunal evaluated the AO's methodology of applying a single highest gross profit percentage across years (46.65%) and the CIT(A)'s reduction to 12.5%, against the assessee's claim that actual profitability reflected in seized materials should be adopted. The Tribunal accepted that seized documents form the primary basis for search assessments and that where the assessee has produced year-wise computations drawn from such seized material, those figures are to be adopted unless shown to be unreliable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the undisclosed profit figures as computed from the seized documents for each assessment year (list of specified amounts for AYs 2017-18 to 2023-24) and determine tax accordingly; the grounds in this respect are partly allowed (decision primarily in favour of the assessee on computation method).

Issue (iii): Whether expenditure on repairs and depreciation of the director's farmhouse is deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the documentary record including a memorandum of understanding and the director's statement recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which indicated partial business use of the farmhouse and contemporaneous evidence that a specified portion was used for company business. The CIT(A)'s factual findings that the farmhouse was partially used for business were unchallenged with contrary evidence before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the farmhouse repairs and depreciation was set aside; the deletion of the disallowance is upheld (decision in favour of the assessee).

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 and directed adoption of seized-document based undisclosed profit computations for the other assessment years while upholding the deletion of farmhouse-related disallowances; accordingly, the cross appeals are disposed of partly allowing the assessee's reliefs and dismissing specified revenue grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions in a completed assessment arising from search cannot be sustained unless incriminating material relating to that specific assessment year is found during the search; where seized documents furnish year-wise accounting for unaccounted receipts and related expenses, undisclosed profit should be computed on the basis of those seized documents rather than by uniform application of an estimated gross profit percentage.

---