Natural justice in income estimation requires confrontation of seized electronic material before quantifying accommodation entry commission.

Reassessment after search was treated as valid where it was founded on search material, and the assessee's dispute over the source or ownership of the electronic data did not by itself negate jurisdiction. For estimation of commission income from an accommodation entry business, 0.15% was accepted as a reasonable rate, but the seized tally data and forensic analysis report had to be confronted to the assessee before quantification. Because that material was not shown during assessment, the matter was remanded for fresh computation after compliance with natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reassessment initiated after search was valid; and (ii) whether the commission income from accommodation entry business could be estimated at 0.15% without confronting the assessee with the seized tally data and forensic analysis report.

Issue (i): whether the reassessment initiated after search was valid.

Analysis: The reassessment was based on search material and was held to have been validly initiated. The Tribunal accepted the finding that the proceedings under reassessment were not without jurisdiction merely because the assessee disputed the source and ownership of the electronic data relied upon by the Department.

Conclusion: The reassessment was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the commission income from accommodation entry business could be estimated at 0.15% without confronting the assessee with the seized tally data and forensic analysis report.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry operations and agreed that 0.15% was a reasonable rate for estimating commission income. However, it held that the material used for quantification, including the tally data and forensic analysis report, had not been confronted to the assessee during assessment and that this caused a violation of natural justice. It therefore directed the Assessing Officer to confront the assessee with the material, consider the reply, and then recompute the income by applying the 0.15% rate.

Conclusion: The estimation at 0.15% was sustained in principle, but the matter was remanded for fresh computation after confrontation of material, substantially in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained the reassessment, but the quantum determination was sent back for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to meet the seized material, and the connected revenue appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: When income is estimated from seized electronic material, the material must be confronted to the assessee and the assessment must observe natural justice, even if the underlying business activity and an appropriate commission rate are otherwise accepted.

---