Section 153C jurisdiction was upheld by the majority because...

Section 153C jurisdiction was upheld by the majority because both Assessing Officers recorded satisfaction that seized material related to the assessee and affected income determination. No prescribed period governed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the other person, and assessment limitation ran from transfer of the seized material. Natural justice did not require supplying statements or permitting cross-examination because the addition rested on seized electronic records rather than witness statements. The seized Excel sheet was treated as corroborated evidence of unexplained investment in a jointly acquired bungalow, as its transaction particulars matched the registered sale deed. The addition remained sustained, subject to verification of the assessee's ownership share and proportionate adjustment.