Issues: (i) Whether the addition of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit and denial of the long-term capital gains claim were sustainable; (ii) Whether the estimated commission addition for alleged bogus share transactions was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash credit and denial of the long-term capital gains claim were sustainable.

Analysis: The shares were acquired through an IPO using banking channels, credited to the demat account, sold through screen-based transactions, and the sale proceeds were received through banking channels. No material linked the assessee to price rigging, entry operations, or other manipulation, and no discrepancy was established in the supporting documents. General allegations concerning the scrip, the investigation material, and an inference based on human probabilities could not displace the documentary evidence or establish that the transactions were non-genuine.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the share-sale proceeds could not be treated as unexplained cash credit and the declared long-term capital gains were to be accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimated commission addition for alleged bogus share transactions was sustainable.

Analysis: The alleged commission expenditure was consequential to the premise that the share transactions were bogus. Once that premise failed, there was no basis for the estimated commission addition.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the commission addition was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The documented IPO acquisition and subsequent demat-based sale of shares remained accepted, with no addition surviving on account of the alleged transactions or related commission.

Ratio Decidendi: Documented share transactions undertaken through banking channels and recognised market mechanisms cannot be treated as unexplained solely on suspicion surrounding the scrip, absent cogent material linking the assessee to manipulation.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated through a notice under Section 148A(b) could be sustained when the finding of income escaping assessment under Section 148A(d) rested on a different foundational allegation.

Analysis: The notice under Section 148A(b) required an explanation on the basis that the land purchase was not recorded in the books of account. The subsequent order under Section 148A(d), however, accepted that the property was disclosed and instead treated the source of funds received from the holding company as unexplained. The statutory reassessment process requires correspondence between the foundational allegation in the notice and the reasons forming the basis of the Section 148A(d) determination; fresh reasons cannot be substituted at that stage. This divergence constituted a jurisdictional defect in the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was invalid and quashed.

Issues: Whether share-capital receipts of INR 3.25 crore were liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee produced confirmations, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, share-allotment records and evidence of the immediate sources of funds. The evidence showed that one investor had received repayment of a loan from an entity with substantial financial capacity, while the other had liquidated investments and possessed sufficient net worth. The transactions were through banking channels. No independent inquiry or contrary material was brought on record to discredit the investors or the documentary evidence; low returned income and the location of the investors were insufficient to negate their creditworthiness.

Conclusion: The assessee discharged the onus under Section 68, including establishing the source of funds in the hands of the investors. The addition of INR 3.25 crore was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether additions under Section 68 for share capital/share application money received from certain investor companies were sustainable despite documentary evidence of the investors, bank transfers and the source of funds; (ii) Whether an addition under Section 68 could be made for an alleged unsecured loan where the accounts showed repayment, rather than receipt, during the relevant year; (iii) Whether share capital and premium received from an investor company could be treated as unexplained under Section 68 when its funding source had been accepted in its own assessment.

Issue (i): Whether additions under Section 68 for share capital/share application money received from certain investor companies were sustainable despite documentary evidence of the investors, bank transfers and the source of funds.

Analysis: Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction. Confirmations, account statements, income-tax records, audited financial material, bank transfers and source-of-source evidence established the relevant investors and the flow of funds. No independent material discrediting the documentary evidence was identified.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 68 for the impugned share capital/share application money were unsustainable and were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition under Section 68 could be made for an alleged unsecured loan where the accounts showed repayment, rather than receipt, during the relevant year.

Analysis: Section 68 applies to a credit entered in the assessee's books during the relevant previous year. The account balances showed that no unsecured loan was received from the stated lender during the year; instead, an existing balance was repaid. No contrary material established a fresh credit entry.

Conclusion: The alleged unsecured-loan addition under Section 68 was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether share capital and premium received from an investor company could be treated as unexplained under Section 68 when its funding source had been accepted in its own assessment.

Analysis: The statement recorded under Section 132(4) did not identify the relevant investor or the impugned transaction as an accommodation entry. The confirmation and banking material showed the investor's funding source, which had been accepted in the investor's assessment. The subsequent revision of that assessment had also been quashed, leaving no basis to disregard the accepted source of funds. The source-of-source requirement was therefore met.

Conclusion: The share capital and premium could not be treated as unexplained under Section 68, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned unexplained-credit additions lacked a factual and evidentiary basis, and the estimated commission addition founded upon those additions had no independent basis.

Ratio Decidendi: An unexplained-credit addition cannot be sustained where reliable documentary and banking evidence establishes the investor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction; equally, Section 68 requires an actual credit entry in the relevant year.

Issues: (i) Whether non-conformity of the notice under section 143(2) with the format prescribed by the CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 invalidates the assessment; (ii) Whether deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and unexplained time deposits on the basis of material produced for the first time in appeal, without an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether non-conformity of the notice under section 143(2) with the format prescribed by the CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017 invalidates the assessment.

Analysis: The prescribed format under the CBDT Instruction is an internal administrative requirement for scrutiny selection. A departure from that format is a curable procedural defect and does not invalidate a notice that otherwise initiates scrutiny assessment proceedings; section 292B protects the consequential assessment from such procedural infirmity.

Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) and the consequential assessment were not invalidated; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of additions for unexplained expenditure and unexplained time deposits on the basis of material produced for the first time in appeal, without an opportunity to the Assessing Officer, could be sustained.

Analysis: The appellate relief rested on documents and explanations not shown to have been placed before the Assessing Officer despite deficient compliance during assessment. Their reliance without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity under Rule 46A breached principles of natural justice. The appellate order also gave no reasoned basis for accepting the evidence or deleting the additions, rendering it a non-speaking order.

Conclusion: The deletion of the additions could not be sustained; the assessment issues were restored for de novo assessment after due opportunity to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge to the assessment fails, while the questions concerning the additions require fresh adjudication through a reasoned assessment process.

Issues: Whether penalty for misreporting of income was sustainable in respect of disallowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions where the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts.

Analysis: Section 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invoked on the basis of the disallowance. The employees' PF/ESI payments and all related particulars had been disclosed by the assessee in its records and tax audit report. No additional material established suppression or misrepresentation of income. Mere rejection of a claim on a technical basis did not establish misreporting.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 270A(9) for misreporting of income was not sustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation, stated to be sourced from recorded cash sales, could be treated as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies where a credit in the books remains unexplained. The cash sales and declared trading results had been accepted, and no defect was found in the stock records. The recorded sales therefore established the source of the cash deposits; sale proceeds could not be treated as unexplained credits merely because customer particulars for cash sales were unavailable.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained cash credit was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance for failure to deduct tax on alleged interest accrued during the relevant year was sustainable; (ii) Whether a capital advance carried forward in the balance sheet could be treated as unexplained expenditure in the relevant year; (iii) Whether an amount forming part of a capital write-off already added back in the computation could be added again; (iv) Whether notional interest could be assessed where no income had accrued during the relevant year; (v) Whether disallowance of project interest for alleged non-deduction of tax was sustainable where tax had been deducted and deposited.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance for failure to deduct tax on alleged interest accrued during the relevant year was sustainable.

Analysis: The reconciled accounts showed that the disputed closing balances represented brought-forward interest balances. No interest was credited to the lenders' accounts or paid during the relevant year. The obligation to deduct tax arises upon credit of the income to the payee's account or payment, whichever is earlier; neither event occurred in the relevant year.

Conclusion: The disallowance was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a capital advance carried forward in the balance sheet could be treated as unexplained expenditure in the relevant year.

Analysis: The capital advance had been paid through banking channels in an earlier financial year and was recorded in the regular books. No payment was made in the relevant year; instead, part of the advance was refunded. Section 69C applies to expenditure incurred in the financial year for which the deemed income is proposed. A carried-forward balance does not constitute expenditure incurred afresh in every subsequent year, and a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond its terms.

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

Issue (iii): Whether an amount forming part of a capital write-off already added back in the computation could be added again.

Analysis: The entire capital write-off had already been added back by the assessee in computing business income. The disputed amount formed part of that self-disallowed sum. A further addition of the same component would result in taxing the same amount twice.

Conclusion: The duplicate addition was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether notional interest could be assessed where no income had accrued during the relevant year.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances, including the borrowers' financial distress, pending recovery proceedings, and insolvency-related developments, established that no real income resulted during the relevant year. The books of account did not record any such accrual.

Conclusion: No notional interest was taxable for the relevant year, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether disallowance of project interest for alleged non-deduction of tax was sustainable where tax had been deducted and deposited.

Analysis: The interest-paid records established that tax had been deducted on each relevant payment and deposited during the previous year, well before the statutory due date for filing the return.

Conclusion: The disallowance was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive additions and disallowances adjudicated on merits were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 69C is confined to unexplained expenditure incurred in the relevant financial year and cannot be invoked merely because a recorded balance from an earlier year continues to appear in the balance sheet.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits for AY 2014-15 warranted restoration for fresh adjudication; (ii) Whether reassessment for AY 2016-17, initiated after three years with approval of the PCIT rather than the PCCIT, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits for AY 2014-15 warranted restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The cash-deposit addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made in an ex parte reassessment, and the first appellate order was also ex parte. Effective opportunity to address the disputed addition had not been available; therefore, de novo adjudication after reasonable opportunity was warranted.

Conclusion: The cash-deposit addition is restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment for AY 2016-17, initiated after three years with approval of the PCIT rather than the PCCIT, was valid.

Analysis: For reassessment initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires sanction from the PCCIT for issuance of notice under Section 148. The approval was instead obtained from the PCIT, who was not the specified sanctioning authority; this jurisdictional defect vitiated the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment for AY 2016-17 is invalid and stands quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cash-deposit controversy for AY 2014-15 requires fresh adjudication, while the reassessment for AY 2016-17 cannot survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is initiated beyond the prescribed three-year period, sanction by the statutorily designated PCCIT is mandatory, and approval by a PCIT cannot validate the reassessment.

Issues: Whether exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied merely because the audit report in Form 10B was not filed along with the return, although it was filed before processing of the return.

Analysis: The return and the audit report were both filed within the prescribed statutory period, and the audit report was available when the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Filing of Form 10B was a procedural requirement; with the substantive conditions for exemption otherwise fulfilled, exemption could not be refused solely because the report was filed separately from the return.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; denial of the exemption was set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that the assessment was made without necessary enquiries and verification of search material.

Analysis: Section 263 permits revision only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Explanation 2(a) applies where enquiries or verification that ought to have been made were not made; it does not equate an enquiry regarded as inadequate with a complete absence of enquiry. The assessment record reflected examination of seized documents, statements, bills, vouchers, digital data, third-party responses, and the issuance of summons and notices. The Assessing Officer independently evaluated the material, rejected part of the explanation, adopted different rates for income estimation, and made a substantive addition. The objection to revision was therefore directed to the width and depth of verification rather than a lack of enquiry. No independent enquiry or positive finding established that the view adopted in assessment was erroneous or unsustainable in law; a direction for a further investigation into the same material could not substitute that requirement.

Conclusion: The conditions for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction were not satisfied; the revision order was invalid and the original assessment order was restored.

Issues: Whether the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on cost of materials consumed and rates and taxes as capital expenditure was sustainable.

Analysis: The expenditure was supported by invoices and related to consumable items regularly used in business operations. The Assessing Officer had accepted the financial statements, identified no expenditure as bogus, non-genuine or fictitious, and neither rejected the books nor established any specific defect in the evidence. The mere quantum of expenditure or an unsupported assertion of enduring benefit could not justify its treatment as capital expenditure or an ad hoc percentage disallowance.

Conclusion: The expenditure on materials consumed and rates and taxes was allowable as revenue expenditure, and the ad hoc disallowances were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the deduction claimed for a contribution to a registered unrecognised political party under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable.

Analysis: A deduction under Section 80GGC requires a genuine political contribution. The donation receipt and banking-channel payment were outweighed by investigation material, un-retracted statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank-trail analysis, and the established modus operandi showing that the recipient party provided accommodation entries through layered funds. Applying the test of human probabilities and preponderance of probabilities, the apparent documentation did not establish a genuine donation.

Conclusion: The contribution was not genuine and was not eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961; finding against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the purchase addition required fresh verification of the supplier's post-assessment clarification and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The purchase discrepancy arose from the supplier's response to verification under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 during assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The supplier's subsequent clarification concerning omitted Jaipur-unit sales, along with invoice, payment, GST and delivery material, had not been verified by the Assessing Officer. The differing explanation earlier offered by the assessee also required factual verification. A reasonable opportunity of hearing was necessary before determining the allowability of the disputed purchase.

Conclusion: Fresh factual verification of the purchase claim and the supplier's clarification was required before a lawful determination of the addition.

Issues: Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the scrutiny assessment order did not disclose the nature or extent of enquiries or verification undertaken.

Analysis: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits revision where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Explanation 2(a) treats an order passed without enquiries or verification that ought to have been made as erroneous and prejudicial. The assessment order was cryptic, non-speaking and contained no factual particulars demonstrating enquiry into the transactions, claimed expenses, or profit disclosed in the return. The record did not establish application of mind by the Assessing Officer, while the revisional authority had examined the relevant financial details and submissions.

Conclusion: The assessment order was rightly treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessee's slump-sale capital-loss computation under the statutory net-worth mechanism could be rejected and the entire transfer consideration taxed as capital gains.

Analysis: Section 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides a self-contained mechanism for computing capital gains on a slump sale, treating the undertaking's net worth as the cost of acquisition and fair market value determined in the prescribed manner as the full value of consideration. The assessee furnished Form 3CEA and adopted the valuation under Rule 11UAE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. No defect in the valuation methodology, accountant's report, or conformity with Rule 11UAE was established. The Assessing Officer therefore could not substitute the prescribed valuation by making extraneous adjustments to reduce the undertaking's net worth to nil. Further, the addition ultimately made exceeded the amount proposed in the show-cause notice, contrary to principles of natural justice and CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015.

Conclusion: The assessee's statutory computation of the slump-sale capital loss was upheld, and the deletion of the addition was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the JSK Server data recovered from the purported pen-drive, and the associated employee statements, were admissible and reliable bases for additions; (ii) Whether uncorroborated WhatsApp chats could sustain an addition for unexplained money; (iii) Whether the disputed bad-debt, repair, maintenance, software, prior-period, electricity and printing expenses were allowable business expenditure; (iv) Whether software installation and support costs covering more than one accounting period were fully deductible in the year incurred; (v) Whether disallowance for non-deduction or short deduction of tax at source was sustainable; (vi) Whether the reduction of deduction under section 80JJAA was justified; (vii) Whether cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) could be imposed on aggregate payments to multiple recipients; and (viii) Whether the assessment for AY 2021-22 could be completed under section 143(3) after the search.

Issue (i): Whether the JSK Server data recovered from the purported pen-drive, and the associated employee statements, were admissible and reliable bases for additions.

Analysis: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual, 2014, require reliable authentication of electronic material, including valid certification, proper seizure documentation, hash values and an unbroken chain of custody. The record disclosed irreconcilable inconsistencies concerning the date and premises of recovery, absence of a seizure memo and chain-of-custody record, absence of hash values, defective certification by a person not shown to control the device, and an apparently fictional device serial number. The search witnesses did not meet the prescribed local-witness requirement. The server contents also lacked independent corroborative evidence connecting any alleged cash transaction or ledger entry with the assessee. The rebuttable presumption under section 292C could not cure these foundational defects. Employee statements obtained without cross-examination could not be used consistently with natural justice, and the tentative, subsequently retracted income offer was unsupported by material evidence.

Conclusion: The JSK Server data and associated statements had no reliable evidentiary value; additions founded solely on that material, including alleged commission and interest income and alleged cash credits, were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uncorroborated WhatsApp chats could sustain an addition for unexplained money.

Analysis: The WhatsApp material was not supported by a section 65B certificate for the source device and did not identify, establish or corroborate the alleged receipt of cash. The chats, viewed independently, did not provide a reliable and verifiable link with undisclosed money.

Conclusion: The WhatsApp chats could not independently sustain the addition for unexplained money, which was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disputed bad-debt, repair, maintenance, software, prior-period, electricity and printing expenses were allowable business expenditure.

Analysis: Expenditure entries linked to the rejected JSK Server-based income could not be disallowed after the underlying additions failed. Routine repairs to leased premises, including shutters and slabs, did not create a capital asset. Annual software licence and customisation charges were incurred for operating an existing accounting system and were revenue expenditure. Prior-period invoicing alone did not justify disallowance where the claim had not been made earlier and the business purpose was not disputed. Electricity, printing and stationery expenses at business locations were supported by business use and could not be disallowed merely because an address differed from the GST registration address.

Conclusion: The relevant disallowances were not sustainable and the deletions of those business expenditure claims were affirmed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether software installation and support costs covering more than one accounting period were fully deductible in the year incurred.

Analysis: The expenditure related to a software licence and support period extending beyond the relevant accounting year. The accrual and matching principle required allocation of the expenditure to the respective periods benefiting from the services.

Conclusion: The proportionate disallowance relating to later periods was sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (v): Whether disallowance for non-deduction or short deduction of tax at source was sustainable.

Analysis: Lease-line payments did not require deduction of tax under sections 194C or 194J. A payment on which tax had been deducted at a lower rate did not attract disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). However, for other maintenance payments, no satisfactory explanation for non-deduction of tax was available.

Conclusion: Disallowance for lease-line payments and payments subject to short deduction was deleted, while the disallowance for unexplained non-deduction on other payments was sustained; the issue was resolved partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (vi): Whether the reduction of deduction under section 80JJAA was justified.

Analysis: The deduction was quantified on the basis of the audit report and supporting calculation, and no new material or basis was shown to displace the lower authorities' quantification.

Conclusion: The reduction of the deduction under section 80JJAA was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) could be imposed on aggregate payments to multiple recipients.

Analysis: Section 40A(3) applies where payment to a single payee on a single day exceeds the prescribed limit. Most payments were separately made to different recipients and could not be aggregated, but two salary-settlement payments to individual payees exceeded the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The disallowance was confined to Rs. 30,740, with the balance deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Whether the assessment for AY 2021-22 could be completed under section 143(3) after the search.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to section 148 deems income to have escaped assessment for prescribed assessment years following a search initiated after 1 April 2021. The special post-search procedure under sections 147, 148 and 148B prevails over the general scrutiny procedure under section 143(3). The assessment had not been initiated or completed through that mandatory special procedure.

Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2021-22 framed under section 143(3) was invalid and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Digital-data-based tax adjustments were eliminated for want of authenticated and corroborated evidence; routine business expenditure remained allowable, subject only to the limited surviving adjustments for period allocation, specified tax-deduction defaults, deduction quantification and cash payments exceeding the statutory threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Electronic material relied upon to fasten tax liability must be authenticated through a valid section 65B certificate and substantially compliant preservation procedures, including a reliable chain of custody; absent such safeguards and independent corroboration, it cannot form the sole basis of an addition.

Issues: Whether credit for tax deducted at source from salary can be refused solely because the deduction is not reflected in Form 26AS.

Analysis: The governing approach to TDS credit does not permit rejection of a salary-related claim solely for want of reflection in Form 26AS. Relevant satisfactory material may include salary slips, employment documents read with bank records, employer payroll or tax workings, and communications concerning deduction or deposit of tax. The evidentiary material supporting the claimed salary deduction requires evaluation.

Conclusion: TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the claimed deduction is absent from Form 26AS; where deduction from salary is satisfactorily established, credit must be granted.

Issues: (i) Whether the fresh assessments were barred by limitation under Section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the additions as income from undisclosed sources required fresh assessment in light of the assessee's non-compliance with directions to furnish the status of the CBI prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the fresh assessments were barred by limitation under Section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 153(3) permits a fresh assessment pursuant to an order under Section 254 within nine months from the end of the financial year in which that order is received. An order under Section 254 includes both an appellate order under Section 254(1) and an order rectifying a mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2). The later rectification order issued operative directions for de novo assessment; therefore, limitation ran from that order. The assessments were made before expiry of the resulting period. This construction also accords with lex non cogit ad impossibilia, since the Assessing Officer could not be required to complete the assessment before the later directions were issued.

Conclusion: The fresh assessments were within limitation; the limitation challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions as income from undisclosed sources required fresh assessment in light of the assessee's non-compliance with directions to furnish the status of the CBI prosecution.

Analysis: The assessee had not fully complied with the direction to periodically furnish the status of the CBI prosecution, which led to completion of the assessments within the limitation period. A detailed status report and any supporting material remain material for determining the taxable income. Non-compliance with the renewed directions permits the Assessing Officer to draw an adverse inference.

Conclusion: The additions are to be reconsidered through a fresh assessment after the assessee furnishes the required status report and material; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection does not invalidate the assessments, but the quantum determination is reopened for lawful reconsideration on the relevant prosecution status and available evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Section 153(3), an operative rectification order under Section 254(2) that issues fresh assessment directions is an order under Section 254 from which the period for completing the fresh assessment is reckoned.

Issues: Whether detention and imposition of tax and penalty for alleged reuse of invoices and e-way bills were sustainable on toll-plaza movement records and photographs.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State enactment require a demonstrated contravention relating to the movement of goods. The goods were accompanied by invoices and a valid e-way bill, without discrepancy in their description, quantity, value or ownership. Toll-plaza photographs and vehicle-movement data, without independent and cogent proof that the same goods had already been delivered and re-transported, were insufficient to establish reuse of the documents. The explanation and invoice concerning an earlier transport of cotton cuttings were not verified. Suspicion or a presumed intention to evade tax cannot substitute proof.

Conclusion: Alleged reuse of the e-way bill and contravention of the GST law were not established; the detention and penalty proceedings were unsustainable in favour of the assessee.