Issues: Whether the difference between the purchase consideration of immovable property and its stamp-duty value was taxable under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The higher stamp-duty value resulted from an increase in valuation between payment of registration charges and execution of the registered sale deed; the additional registration amount was paid accordingly. Before that increase, the difference between the consideration and stamp value was within the 10% tolerance limit. The addition was also made without reference to the District Valuation Officer.

Conclusion: The addition for the stamp-value differential was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a penalty notice issued without specifying the applicable limb or sub-clause for penalty under Section 270A was valid; (ii) Whether penalty could be sustained despite inconsistent treatment of an identical donation claim in a parallel case.

Issue (i): Whether a penalty notice issued without specifying the applicable limb or sub-clause for penalty under Section 270A was valid.

Analysis: The notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A did not identify the specific limb or sub-clause on which penalty was proposed. A standard-form notice lacking this material specification evidenced absence of application of mind and did not provide a valid basis for penalty proceedings. The principle governing defective penalty notices was applicable notwithstanding that the cited precedent concerned penalty under a different provision.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was invalid, and the consequential penalty order under Section 270A could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be sustained despite inconsistent treatment of an identical donation claim in a parallel case.

Analysis: On identical facts concerning donations to the same political entity during the same assessment period, parallel penalty proceedings had received the benefit of exclusion under Section 270A(6)(a). Denial of identical treatment in the present case departed from the requirements of consistency, judicial discipline and uniformity in decision-making.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable on the additional ground of inconsistent treatment, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty proceedings and penalty were quashed and deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty notice that does not specify the precise statutory charge is invalid, and materially identical cases must receive consistent treatment absent a rational basis for distinction.

Issues: Whether expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion was capital expenditure liable to capitalisation or allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The expenditure comprised recurring outlays on promotional and advertising activities incurred to sustain the assessee's business in a competitive market. Its nature did not establish acquisition of a capital asset or a benefit of enduring nature. Similar expenditure had consistently been accepted as revenue expenditure in preceding and succeeding years, including scrutiny assessments, and no material change in facts or circumstances justified a contrary treatment for the relevant year. The principle of consistency in tax assessments applied.

Conclusion: The advertisement, publicity and sales-promotion expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable in full; the disallowance by capitalisation was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the transferred agricultural land was a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the alternative claim for exemption under section 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be raised and considered.

Issue (i): Whether the transferred agricultural land was a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Agricultural land falling within the jurisdiction of a municipality having the prescribed population is a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii)(a); the aerial-distance criteria under clause (b) apply only where the land lies outside municipal limits. The decisive factual question was whether the specified land fell within the municipal jurisdiction on the transfer date. The conclusion below rested only on a narration of a Tehsildar's report, without the report itself, municipal notification, record, or map being available for verification.

Conclusion: The finding that the land was a capital asset was set aside for fresh verification of its municipal-jurisdiction status and, if necessary, the applicable distance and population criteria. No finding on the merits of the land's status was made.

Issue (ii): Whether the alternative claim for exemption under section 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be raised and considered.

Analysis: The alternative claim arose only if the transferred land were found to be a capital asset, and the primary facts concerning sale and purchase were already on record. Appellate jurisdiction permits admission of such a claim even though it was not made in the return or before the lower authorities. Section 54B applies where agricultural land that is a capital asset is transferred, subject to proof of agricultural use during the prescribed preceding period and purchase of other land for agricultural use within the statutory period. The existing record did not establish those conditions.

Conclusion: The alternative section 54B claim was admitted and must be considered on evidence if the transferred land is found to be a capital asset.

Final Conclusion: The existing adverse determinations cannot stand without verification from the underlying municipal records, while the alternative statutory relief remains available for determination upon proof of its factual conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of agricultural land as a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) must be supported by the underlying official records establishing its municipal-jurisdiction status on the date of transfer, and not merely by an unproduced report.

Issues: Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained where the notice under Section 274 did not specify the applicable limb and the penalty was ultimately levied on a different charge.

Analysis: A notice initiating penalty proceedings must clearly inform the assessee whether the allegation is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Retaining both alternatives in a standard-form notice, coupled with an assessment order referring to inaccurate particulars and a penalty order imposing penalty for concealment, failed to communicate a specific charge and reflected non-application of mind. The defect was not cured by the assessee having responded on the merits.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was invalid, and the penalty imposed pursuant to it could not be sustained; the penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Novation Agreement relating to an insolvent creditor was admissible as additional evidence under Rule 46A; (ii) Whether unsecured loans received from two corporate creditors were unexplained cash credits; and (iii) Whether interest capitalised to unsold land stock could be disallowed.

Issue (i): Whether the Novation Agreement relating to an insolvent creditor was admissible as additional evidence under Rule 46A.

Analysis: The agreement came to the assessee's knowledge only after completion of assessment and concerned a creditor undergoing insolvency proceedings. It consequently fell within Rule 46A(1)(c). The request for a further remand report, if required, did not amount to withdrawal of the application for admission of additional evidence. As the Revenue had already commented upon the agreement in the remand report, its consideration caused no prejudice.

Conclusion: The Novation Agreement was admitted as additional evidence, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unsecured loans received from two corporate creditors were unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: For the relevant year, the burden of proof under Section 68 required prima facie proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness; it did not require proof of the source of source of loan funds. The creditors' corporate registration, income-tax returns, confirmations, banking-channel transactions, and tax deduction on interest were undisputed. The loans were brokered with documented brokerage payments subject to tax deduction. One creditor's advances were traceable to its bank account and were repaid through banking channels; the other creditor's insolvency position and the admitted Novation Agreement supported the transaction. A creditor's non-response to a notice, without further inquiry from the Revenue or material showing accommodation entries, could not displace the explanation.

Conclusion: The unsecured loans were not unexplained cash credits, and the addition of Rs. 2,69,99,000 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest capitalised to unsold land stock could be disallowed.

Analysis: A disallowance requires a claim of deduction. The interest was capitalised to the cost of land stock remaining unsold and was not debited to the profit and loss account. Accordingly, no revenue deduction had been claimed. Further, the loans forming the basis of the interest expenditure were accepted as genuine.

Conclusion: The disallowance of capitalised interest of Rs. 36,83,043 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary record discharged the burden of proof concerning the loan credits, and interest not claimed as a revenue deduction could not give rise to a disallowance.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 68 as applicable to the relevant year, once a borrower prima facie establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of a loan creditor, it need not prove the source of the creditor's funds, and the creditor's failure to respond to a notice, without further Revenue inquiry or contrary material, does not justify an adverse addition.

Issues: (i) Whether profit on admitted unrecorded sales could be estimated at a 5.91% gross-profit rate despite accepted audited gross loss and consistent prior-year methodology; (ii) Whether Rs. 28,00,000 could be added under Section 68 based on entries in an employee's pen drive, including where the entries were outside the assessee's books and allegedly already taxed as group-fund or unrecorded-sale receipts.

Issue (i): Whether profit on admitted unrecorded sales could be estimated at a 5.91% gross-profit rate despite accepted audited gross loss and consistent prior-year methodology.

Analysis: The unrecorded turnover was computed on the assessee's own input-ratio working, which was accepted in full. The audited gross-loss rate of 2.02% for the same ready-mix concrete business, product, plant, year and market was also accepted; the books were neither rejected nor found defective, and Section 145(3) was not invoked. In the preceding four years, on the same seized material and methodology, the current year's disclosed gross-profit rate had been applied. No material justified departure from that consistent approach merely because the current year's rate was negative. An estimate must bear a reasonable nexus to the record.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 6,52,698 based on a 5.91% gross-profit rate is deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether Rs. 28,00,000 could be added under Section 68 based on entries in an employee's pen drive, including where the entries were outside the assessee's books and allegedly already taxed as group-fund or unrecorded-sale receipts.

Analysis: Section 68 is attracted only where a sum is found credited in the assessee's own books. The entries were recovered from an employee's pen drive and the assessment itself proceeded on the basis that they were not recorded in the assessee's books; therefore, the statutory foundation for the addition, and the consequent burden to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, did not arise. The entries appeared under another individual's account, without corroboration of receipt by the assessee. The unrebutted material also showed that the entries were considered in the group-fund assessment of that individual, while the assessee's explanation that the receipts formed part of the unrecorded sales had not been displaced. Taxing the whole receipts in addition to the profit on that turnover would result in double taxation contrary to the real-income principle.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 28,00,000 under Section 68 is deleted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned gross-profit and cash-credit adjustments lack the necessary factual and statutory foundation and cannot be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax addition founded on an estimate or alleged unexplained credit must have a demonstrable evidentiary basis in the assessee's records and the material on record; absent that foundation, it cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) for failure to produce books, bills and vouchers was valid; (ii) Whether the ad hoc disallowance of 25% of expenditure following that rejection was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) for failure to produce books, bills and vouchers was valid.

Analysis: Section 145(3) permits rejection where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts. Despite repeated opportunities and penalty for non-compliance, no books, bills or vouchers were produced. An audit report could not substitute the primary records required for verification, and the explanation concerning electronic notices did not cure the default.

Conclusion: Rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) was valid and stands confirmed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of 25% of expenditure following that rejection was sustainable.

Analysis: A best judgment assessment following rejection of books requires an honest estimate having a reasonable nexus to material; rejection does not itself require an addition. The 25% rate lacked identified bogus or inflated expenditure, a stated basis for selecting that rate, or other supporting material, while the disclosed receipts were accepted. The audited financial statements of adjacent years were admitted as additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, but required verification before the appropriate income-tax authority. Complete non-production of the primary records nevertheless precluded outright deletion of the addition.

Conclusion: The 25% disallowance is set aside, and the quantum of disallowance, if any, is to be determined afresh after verification, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the accounts remains binding, but any expenditure disallowance must be founded on verified material and determined anew.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of accounts authorises a best judgment assessment but does not, without material and a reasoned nexus, itself justify an addition or arbitrary expenditure disallowance.

Issues: (i) Whether delayed furnishing of Form No. 67 under Rule 128(9) defeats foreign tax credit under Section 90; (ii) Whether the CPC's internally contradictory computation of the credit is a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154.

Issue (i): Whether delayed furnishing of Form No. 67 under Rule 128(9) defeats foreign tax credit under Section 90.

Analysis: Section 90 is the source of the foreign-tax-credit entitlement and prescribes no deadline for furnishing Form No. 67. Rule 128(9) requires its furnishing within the stated time, but attaches no consequence of denial for delayed filing. Rule 128(4), which specifies circumstances for non-allowance of credit, does not include late filing of Form No. 67. A procedural requirement without a stipulated consequence for breach is directory.

Conclusion: The time limit under Rule 128(9) is directory, and foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because Form No. 67 was furnished after the Section 139(1) due date. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the CPC's internally contradictory computation of the credit is a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154.

Analysis: The rectification order recorded the foreign tax credit as available both in the taxpayer-provided and CPC-computed annexures, while entering nil credit in the computation portion of the same order. This direct internal inconsistency was evident from the record and required no prolonged reasoning to establish the error.

Conclusion: The nil-credit entry is a rectifiable mistake apparent from the record, and the foreign tax credit must be allowed. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory foreign-tax-credit entitlement is to be recognised through rectification and consequential recomputation.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural deadline for furnishing evidence of foreign tax credit, when no consequence of non-compliance is prescribed, is directory and cannot defeat the substantive credit entitlement.

Issues: (i) Whether an uncorroborated statement recorded in a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can alone justify an addition as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether failure to upload a tax-audit report where accounts were audited in time owing to the Chartered Accountant's illness is protected by reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against penalty under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an uncorroborated statement recorded in a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can alone justify an addition as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The disclosure was based on pro forma accounts prepared without reference to the actual books, and no incriminating material or other corroborative evidence supported the estimated income. The audited books reflected the financial position for the whole year and were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A survey statement has no independent evidentiary value without corroboration. Further, the requirements for treating an amount as unexplained money were absent because no unrecorded money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable article was found in the assessee's ownership.

Conclusion: The addition as unexplained money was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to upload a tax-audit report where accounts were audited in time owing to the Chartered Accountant's illness is protected by reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against penalty under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The accounts had been audited and the audit report had been signed before the due date; its non-uploading resulted from the bona fide mistake of the elderly auditor suffering from Parkinson's disease. The report and audited accounts were subsequently furnished during assessment. The lapse was a technical or venial breach, without an intent to evade tax, and constituted reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The penalty for failure to furnish the tax-audit report was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: An uncorroborated survey disclosure cannot substitute proof of unexplained money, and a bona fide technical delay in uploading an otherwise completed audit report does not attract penal consequences where reasonable cause is established.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were invalid for failure to specify the charge; (ii) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be sustained where income was added solely through the deeming fiction in section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Issue (i): Whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were invalid for failure to specify the charge.

Analysis: The notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) expressly identified concealment of income as the charge, and the penalty was computed on that basis. The Assessee was therefore informed of the precise allegation to be met.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were valid because the charge of concealment of income was specifically stated. This issue is against the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be sustained where income was added solely through the deeming fiction in section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Analysis: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) substitutes stamp-duty value for stated consideration through a legal fiction. Such substitution permits an assessment addition but does not itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes. The registered purchase deed, bank statements, and payment particulars were disclosed and were not found false; nor was there any finding that consideration exceeding the stated amount had been paid. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was inapplicable because the explanation was neither found false nor shown to be lacking in substantiation or bona fides. Acceptance of the assessment addition without appeal did not amount to an admission of concealment, as assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained on the deemed addition and was deleted. This issue is in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: A statutory valuation fiction, without evidence of undisclosed actual consideration or false particulars, does not establish a default attracting concealment penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A deemed addition based solely on substitution of stamp-duty value cannot, by itself, prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reported income could be imposed under section 270A where the return was first furnished in response to a section 148 notice, accepted without variation, and delayed because of statutory audit and a pending condonation application.

Analysis: Although the statutory trigger under section 270A(2)(b) was attracted where the return was first furnished under section 148 and assessed income exceeded the non-taxable threshold, that trigger did not create an irrebuttable presumption. Section 270A(6)(a) excludes income for which a bona fide explanation is offered and all material facts are disclosed, while the word "may" in section 270A(1) preserves discretion in levying penalty. The explanation concerning delayed finalisation of accounts due to statutory audit and the unresolved condonation application was consistent and was not found false. The returned figures were verified and accepted without any addition or disallowance, and the tax with interest had been paid.

Conclusion: The returned income could not be treated as under-reported income because it was excluded under section 270A(6)(a); the penalty was deleted.

Issues: Whether the receipt of Rs. 6,20,000, being refund of a transportation advance given in an earlier year, was assessable as an unexplained cash credit.

Analysis: The documentary confirmation and ledger records established that the amount was refunded by Shree Ganesh Transport against an earlier advance. The discrepancy arose because the assessee had incorrectly maintained the ledger in the name of Ganesh Transport instead of Shree Ganesh Transport. A mere naming discrepancy did not displace the evidence demonstrating the source and character of the receipt.

Conclusion: The receipt was a refund of an earlier advance and was not an unexplained cash credit; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice for reassessment and the consequential assessment were valid when sanction under Section 151 was communicated to the Assessing Officer after issuance of the notice under Section 148. (ii) Whether the consolidated approval under Section 151 for multiple assessees was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the notice for reassessment and the consequential assessment were valid when sanction under Section 151 was communicated to the Assessing Officer after issuance of the notice under Section 148.

Analysis: Section 151 requires prior statutory sanction for initiating reassessment under Sections 147 and 148. Although the approval bore the same date as the notice, the record showed that it was received by the Assessing Officer only after the notice had been issued. The reassessment initiation therefore suffered from a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment under Sections 143(3) and 147 were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the consolidated approval under Section 151 for multiple assessees was valid.

Analysis: The approval was issued collectively for numerous entities. Such consolidated approval was found to be invalid, rendering the notice issued pursuant to it unsustainable.

Conclusion: The consolidated approval and the reassessment notice issued pursuant to it were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and the addition made thereunder lack a valid jurisdictional foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued before statutory sanction is communicated to the Assessing Officer, or pursuant to an invalid consolidated sanction, is void and cannot sustain the consequential assessment.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 54F is available where the new asset is a commercial plot and the construction was treated as a godown, and how the deduction is to be apportioned among co-owners; (ii) Whether the stamp-duty value adopted under section 50C governs the net consideration for computing deduction under section 54F.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 54F is available where the new asset is a commercial plot and the construction was treated as a godown, and how the deduction is to be apportioned among co-owners.

Analysis: The transfer, the new plot and the construction were identical to those involved in the co-owner's case, in which deduction was allowed. The commercial character of the plot and the description of the construction as a godown do not, by themselves, defeat the requirement of construction for residential purposes. Judicial consistency requires identical treatment of co-owners on the same facts. However, the aggregate deduction available to co-owners cannot exceed the actual cost of the new asset; the actual investment and relief already allowed to other co-owners require verification.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, deduction under section 54F cannot be denied because the plot was commercial or the construction was regarded as a godown; it shall be restricted to the assessee's verified share of the actual investment after accounting for relief granted to other co-owners.

Issue (ii): Whether the stamp-duty value adopted under section 50C governs the net consideration for computing deduction under section 54F.

Analysis: The meaning of full value of consideration under section 50C does not govern net consideration for the purpose of section 54F. The deemed stamp-valuation figure could not be substituted for the consideration stated in the sale deed while computing the deduction.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the section 50C value cannot be imported into the section 54F computation; net consideration is to be taken at Rs. 91,20,000.

Final Conclusion: The capital-gains computation must allow section 54F relief with reference to the actual sale consideration and the assessee's verified proportion of investment in the new asset, subject to avoidance of any duplication among co-owners.

Ratio Decidendi: Deduction under section 54F is determined by qualifying residential construction and actual net consideration; neither the commercial description of the plot or construction nor deemed valuation under section 50C can independently deny or inflate that deduction.

Issues: (i) Validity of the jurisdictional notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where it described the assessee both as a searched person and as another person; (ii) Validity of approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the escaped-income amount in the approval differed from that stated in the underlying reasons.

Issue (i): Validity of the jurisdictional notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where it described the assessee both as a searched person and as another person.

Analysis: A notice under Section 148 must disclose a definite jurisdictional basis for reopening. The impugned notice alternatively treated the assessee as a searched person and as another person, leaving the basis of jurisdiction indeterminate. Such ambiguous and mechanical issuance reflected non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Validity of approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the escaped-income amount in the approval differed from that stated in the underlying reasons.

Analysis: The approval recorded escaped income of Rs. 50,00,000, whereas the underlying reasons stated Rs. 34,48,344. The unexplained material discrepancy showed that the approving authority had not examined the reasons before granting statutory approval, rendering the approval mechanical and without application of mind.

Conclusion: The approval under Section 151 was invalid, and the assessment order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings initiated on the impugned notice could not be sustained, and the assessment stood quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice and statutory approval must reflect a clear jurisdictional basis and genuine application of mind; ambiguity in the notice or an unexplained mismatch between the recorded reasons and approval invalidates the reassessment action.

Issues: Whether reassessment can survive where no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening and the assessment makes an addition on an unrelated item.

Analysis: Sections 147 and 148 permit reassessment only on a legally sustainable reopening founded on the recorded information. The recorded reasons concerned specified financial transactions, but no addition was made in respect of those transactions. The addition made instead concerned surplus funds, which did not form part of the recorded reasons. In the absence of an addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, the reassessment could not be sustained for making an unrelated addition.

Conclusion: The reassessment and the consequential addition relating to surplus funds were quashed as legally unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment was invalid for want of a valid and timely notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether cash seized from the assessee's residence was liable to be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment was invalid for want of a valid and timely notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The return was furnished during financial year 2019-20. The notice was issued on 19.09.2020 and recorded as duly served, within the prescribed period ending on 30.09.2020. No material disproved service, and the general challenge did not identify any other mandatory breach.

Conclusion: The notice was valid and timely, and the assessment was not invalid on this ground; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash seized from the assessee's residence was liable to be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69A requires that the assessee be the owner of money not recorded in the books and fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of its nature and source. Although possession raises a rebuttable presumption of ownership, the explanation that the cash belonged to the employer company was given during the search and remained consistent. The company cash book and audited accounts recorded the seized sum as cash seized by the Income Tax Department. The absence of a withdrawal entry did not contradict the explanation of safe custody, and no finding discredited the company records or established that the cash belonged to the assessee.

Conclusion: The presumption of ownership stood rebutted; the assessee was not the owner of the seized cash for section 69A purposes, and the addition was liable to be deleted; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: While the assessment remained jurisdictionally valid, the disputed cash could not be assessed as unexplained money in the assessee's hands, and the consequential application of section 115BBE did not arise.

Ratio Decidendi: A possession-based presumption of ownership under section 69A is rebutted where a contemporaneous and consistent explanation is supported by credible books and audited accounts of the person claiming ownership, and the Revenue does not discredit that evidence.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 153C after the statutory cut-off date, reckoned from the deemed date of search, was valid.

Analysis: Under Section 153C(1), the handing over of seized material to the assessing officer of the other person on 17.09.2021 fixed the deemed date of search. The proviso to Section 153C(3), read with Section 153(3), barred issuance of a notice under Section 153C after 01.04.2021. The notice dated 09.10.2021 was therefore issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 153C and the consequential assessment were invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether entry into a joint development agreement established conversion of the land from a capital asset into stock-in-trade so as to attract Section 45(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and tax long-term capital gains; (ii) Whether transfer of flats by the assessee to his wife, without actual receipt of consideration, could be assessed as business income.

Issue (i): Whether entry into a joint development agreement established conversion of the land from a capital asset into stock-in-trade so as to attract Section 45(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and tax long-term capital gains

Analysis: Section 45(2) applies only where a capital asset is converted by its owner into, or treated as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by that owner. The assessee was not engaged in real-estate business, and execution of a joint development agreement, under which development was undertaken by another party, did not by itself establish conversion of the land into stock-in-trade. No evidence proving such conversion was shown.

Conclusion: Section 45(2) was inapplicable and the long-term capital-gains addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether transfer of flats by the assessee to his wife, without actual receipt of consideration, could be assessed as business income

Analysis: Assessment as business income required proof of a sale involving actual consideration. The wife's affidavit and bank statements showed absence of payment, and that evidence remained unrebutted. A sale-deed recital or stated value for duty purposes, without actual payment, was insufficient to establish a sale generating business income.

Conclusion: The transfer was not a sale giving rise to business income and the business-income addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The land retained its character as a capital asset, and the transfer of flats without actual consideration could not generate taxable business income.