Issues: (i) Whether a statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is validly served when it is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address and received by the drawer's mother; (ii) Whether the decision treating service upon a drawer's spouse as insufficient without examining the correctness of the address or shared residence is binding precedent.

Issue (i): Whether a statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is validly served when it is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address and received by the drawer's mother.

Analysis: Proviso (b) to Section 138 requires the payee to give written notice to the drawer. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raise a rebuttable presumption of service where notice is properly addressed and dispatched by registered post. The statutory requirement concerns giving notice, not proof of its personal receipt by the drawer. Once dispatch to the correct address is established, the burden lies on the drawer to show that the address was incorrect, that the notice was not tendered, or that the drawer had no knowledge of its delivery at that address. Receipt by a family member at the shared residential address does not, by itself, rebut that presumption.

Conclusion: Dispatch of the notice by registered post to the drawer's correct address satisfied the statutory requirement of giving notice; the unrebutted presumption of valid service applied notwithstanding receipt by the drawer's mother.

Issue (ii): Whether the decision treating service upon a drawer's spouse as insufficient without examining the correctness of the address or shared residence is binding precedent.

Analysis: The earlier decision had disregarded binding larger-Bench authority establishing deemed service upon correct dispatch and had treated a spouse as equivalent to an unrelated third party without addressing whether the notice was sent to the correct address or whether the spouse resided with the drawer. Such an approach conflicts with the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the settled rule that the drawer must rebut it.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was per incuriam and cannot operate as binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: A correctly addressed statutory notice sent by registered post attracts a rebuttable presumption of service, and the drawer cannot defeat that presumption merely because a co-residing family member received the notice.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dispatch of a correctly addressed notice by registered post constitutes giving notice and raises a rebuttable presumption of service, which the drawer must displace by credible proof of non-service or lack of knowledge not attributable to the drawer.

Issues: Whether a merits order quashing the issuance of process warranted recall because the complainant was unrepresented when the matter was finally heard.

Analysis: The order sought to be recalled had adjudicated the complaint on merits after considering the pleadings and record and applying Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Although the complainant had remained absent when the matter was heard, the record reflected prior adjournments sought on its behalf and no cogent ground or infirmity was established to justify reopening the merits determination.

Conclusion: Recall of the merits order was unwarranted.

Issues: Whether refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure is available where bulk sulphur and packaged sulphur attract the same GST rate but packing materials attract a higher rate, notwithstanding the CBIC circulars concerning identical input and output supplies.

Analysis: Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits refund where input tax credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. Packing materials used to make bulk sulphur marketable in customised packets qualify as inputs under Section 2(59), and the higher tax paid on such materials resulted in accumulated credit. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST concerned accumulation arising from a reduction in the rate on the same goods and did not govern the stated facts. Further, instructions issued under Section 168(1) may secure uniform implementation but cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: The taxpayer is entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure; the restriction urged by Revenue on the basis that input and output supplies are the same is not applicable.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packing materials used to package bulk sulphur is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding that the principal input and output sulphur attract GST at the same rate.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packing materials used to package bulk sulphur is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding that the principal input and output sulphur attract GST at the same rate.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund where input tax credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. Packing materials used for marketing sulphur in customised packets are inputs used in the course or furtherance of business; their GST rate of 18% exceeded the 5% rate on the outward supply. The restriction in the departmental circulars concerning identical input and output supplies could not curtail the statutory refund entitlement, since the power to issue directions for uniform implementation does not permit addition of restrictions absent from the statute.

Conclusion: The accumulated input tax credit attributable to the higher-taxed packing materials is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii), and the sanctioned refund remains valid.

Issues: (i) Whether the holding period of the allotted flat must be reckoned from the allotment letter rather than the registered conveyance deed, making the resultant gain long-term capital gain and allowing indexation and deduction under section 54; (ii) Whether the allotment letter constituted an agreement for applying the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b), thereby requiring use of the stamp-duty value on the allotment date.

Issue (i): Whether the holding period of the allotted flat must be reckoned from the allotment letter rather than the registered conveyance deed, making the resultant gain long-term capital gain and allowing indexation and deduction under section 54.

Analysis: Sections 2(29A) and 2(42A) classify an asset by the period for which it is held, rather than by the date on which formal conveyance is registered. The allotment of an identified flat conferred enforceable rights in the property, and payments were made under the allotment arrangement. Subsequent registration of the conveyance deed did not determine the commencement of the holding period.

Conclusion: The holding period commenced from the date of allotment. The property was a long-term capital asset when sold, and the assessee is entitled to indexation and deduction under section 54 in accordance with law. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment letter constituted an agreement for applying the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b), thereby requiring use of the stamp-duty value on the allotment date.

Analysis: The first proviso permits adoption of stamp-duty value as on the date of an agreement where that date differs from registration, and the second proviso requires whole or part consideration to have been paid by a non-cash mode on or before the agreement date. The allotment letter, containing the material terms of acquisition, was an agreement for this purpose; part consideration had also been paid through banking channels before its issue.

Conclusion: The stamp-duty value as on the allotment date must be adopted for section 56(2)(vii)(b), not the value as on registration. The valuation-based addition requires recomputation by the Assessing Officer. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The sale must receive long-term capital-gain treatment, and the valuation-based income determination must be recomputed by reference to the stamp-duty value prevailing on the date of the agreement/allotment.

Ratio Decidendi: For immovable property acquired under an allotment arrangement, the relevant property rights are held from the date of allotment; where consideration is paid by non-cash modes before that agreement, the statutory stamp-duty comparison is made with the value on the agreement date rather than the registration date.

Issues: (i) Whether a separate 4% profit addition could be made on subcontract expenditure where the related original contract receipts and profit were recorded in the books; (ii) Whether the donation disallowance was sustainable in the absence of supporting receipts; and (iii) Whether PF late-payment charges representing interest and damages were respectively deductible.

Issue (i): Whether a separate 4% profit addition could be made on subcontract expenditure where the related original contract receipts and profit were recorded in the books.

Analysis: The subcontracted work formed part of the original civil-contract work, whose receipts had already been recorded and subjected to tax. Payments to subcontractors were made through banking channels with tax deducted at source. Estimating a further profit on the same subcontract expenditure would result in double taxation of income already reflected in the books.

Conclusion: The separate estimated-profit addition on subcontract expenditure was unwarranted and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the donation disallowance was sustainable in the absence of supporting receipts.

Analysis: Deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires supporting receipts and evidence from an eligible institution. Although banking entries were produced, receipts for a substantial part of the claimed donation were unavailable; the deduction had already been allowed to the extent supported by receipts.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 79,000 was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether PF late-payment charges representing interest and damages were respectively deductible.

Analysis: The payment challans showed that the disputed amount comprised both interest and damages. Compensatory interest under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is allowable expenditure, whereas damages under Section 14B of that Act are penal in character and are not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The available record did not provide the necessary bifurcation.

Conclusion: The interest component is allowable and the damages component is disallowable; determination of their respective amounts was remitted for verification, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed income must be reduced by the deleted subcontract-profit addition, while the donation disallowance remains intact and the PF claim is to be recomputed according to its interest and damages components.

Issues: Whether reassessment for an assessment year falling beyond six years from the search could be sustained where additions for unexplained cash receipts and cash expenditure were not shown to represent income in the form of a qualifying asset.

Analysis: The transitional bar in the first proviso to Section 149 required examination of whether a notice could validly have been issued under the pre-Finance Act 2021 search-assessment regime. For a year beyond the six-year period, the extended period under Section 153A/153C was available only where material in the Assessing Officer's possession revealed escaped income represented in the form of an asset of the prescribed value. The additions under Sections 69A and 69C were founded on alleged cash receipts and cash expenditure, but no undisclosed land, building, shares, securities, loans, advances, bank deposits, financial interest, or other qualifying asset for the relevant year was found or evidenced. A statement recorded during search did not establish the separate statutory asset condition.

Conclusion: The extended limitation was unavailable and the reassessment for the year beyond six years was invalid; the relief granted against the additions was sustained.

Issues: Whether the revenue's and assessee's cross-appeals for the relevant assessment years survived after giving-effect orders, applying an approved resolution plan, recomputed taxable income at nil and eliminated the tax demands.

Analysis: The giving-effect orders issued pursuant to the approved resolution plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process treated revenue claims not included in that plan as extinguished. The binding effect of an approved resolution plan on statutory authorities resulted in nil income and no demand for each assessment year.

Conclusion: The cross-appeals did not survive for adjudication and were infructuous.

Issues: (i) Whether the enhanced 10% tolerance band under the first proviso to section 43CA(1) applies to assessment year 2016-17; (ii) Whether the deemed-consideration addition for Flat A-702 could be sustained without verifying the claimed 2011 allotment and invoking the valuation mechanism under section 43CA(2).

Issue (i): Whether the enhanced 10% tolerance band under the first proviso to section 43CA(1) applies to assessment year 2016-17.

Analysis: Section 43CA deems the stamp-duty value to be sale consideration where stock-in-trade is transferred below that value, subject to the statutory tolerance band. The enhancement of the tolerance band to 10% was treated as a curative amendment intended to alleviate unintended hardship arising from a deeming provision and, therefore, applicable retrospectively. The authority relied upon for treating the amendment as prospective did not decide the retrospectivity of the tolerance band. The differences for the two flats, being 5% and 3.76%, fell within the retrospectively applicable 10% band.

Conclusion: The enhanced 10% tolerance band applies to assessment year 2016-17, and the additions relating to the two flats falling within that band are deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deemed-consideration addition for Flat A-702 could be sustained without verifying the claimed 2011 allotment and invoking the valuation mechanism under section 43CA(2).

Analysis: Sections 43CA(3) and 43CA(4) permit adoption of the stamp-duty value as on the agreement date where consideration was fixed under the agreement and prescribed payment conditions were met. The claimed allotment and receipt through banking channels required verification against the primary material. Section 43CA(2) incorporates the valuation machinery in sections 50C(2) and 50C(3); a specific objection that stamp valuation exceeds fair market value could not be rejected solely because no independent valuation report was furnished. The statutory verification and, where warranted, reference to the Valuation Officer were required before fixing deemed consideration.

Conclusion: The addition for Flat A-702 is to be freshly determined after verification of the allotment claim and, where warranted, reference to the Valuation Officer; this is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The 10% tolerance relief governs the two qualifying transfers, while the remaining transfer requires adjudication through the statutory agreement-date and valuation process.

Ratio Decidendi: A curative tolerance mitigating hardship under a deeming provision applies retrospectively, and a specific objection to stamp valuation requires recourse to the statutory verification and valuation machinery before deemed consideration is determined.

Issues: (i) Whether Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument could be invoked to deny India-Ireland DTAA benefits without a specific notification under section 90(1); (ii) Whether the claimed treaty benefit for aircraft leasing was contrary to treaty object and purpose under the Principal Purpose Test; (iii) Whether dry-lease rental income was covered by Article 8(1) and the leased aircraft constituted a permanent establishment in India; and (iv) Whether the aircraft leases were finance leases yielding interest income.

Issue (i): Whether Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument could be invoked to deny India-Ireland DTAA benefits without a specific notification under section 90(1).

Analysis: Treaty modifications under the Multilateral Instrument require incorporation into domestic law through a specific notification under section 90(1). In the absence of a notification incorporating Articles 6 and 7 into the India-Ireland DTAA, the Principal Purpose Test was not enforceable to restrict treaty benefits.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument could not be invoked to deny India-Ireland DTAA benefits.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed treaty benefit for aircraft leasing was contrary to treaty object and purpose under the Principal Purpose Test.

Analysis: The valid tax-residency status, commercial substance, and cross-border aircraft-leasing activity did not establish that securing treaty relief was a principal purpose contrary to the treaty's object and purpose. The treaty's allocation of taxing rights for aircraft-leasing income was intended to confer the claimed relief.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the treaty benefit for aircraft leasing was consistent with the object and purpose of the India-Ireland DTAA and could not be denied under the Principal Purpose Test.

Issue (iii): Whether dry-lease rental income was covered by Article 8(1) and the leased aircraft constituted a permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The dry-leasing business was undertaken from Ireland, while operational control, deployment, routing, scheduling, and crewing remained with the Indian lessee. Standard lessor rights of inspection, maintenance oversight, repossession, and return did not place the aircraft at the lessor's disposal as a fixed place of business. Aircraft rental used in international traffic fell within Article 8(1), which specifically governs such income.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: no permanent establishment arose in India, and the dry-lease rentals were covered by Article 8(1) and taxable only in Ireland.

Issue (iv): Whether the aircraft leases were finance leases yielding interest income.

Analysis: Ownership remained with the lessor, the lessee acquired no ownership rights, the aircraft was returnable at the end of the term, and repossession rights subsisted upon default. These features established an operating lease rather than a transaction transferring ownership risks and rewards; periodic rentals did not alter that character.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the arrangements were dry operating leases, and the rentals were not interest income taxable under section 115A or Article 11.

Final Conclusion: The assessment of the aircraft lease rentals in India could not be sustained under the applicable treaty framework.

Issues: (i) Whether the loan of Rs. 23,00,000 was assessable as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether inferred commission expenditure of Rs. 12,420 was assessable under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether interest of Rs. 1,69,003 relating to the loan could be disallowed.

Issue (i): Whether the loan of Rs. 23,00,000 was assessable as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 68 requires a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of a credit, including the lender's identity, prima facie capacity and the genuineness of the transaction. The record contained the lender's confirmation, identified NEFT transfer, banking evidence, financial statements, registration as a non-banking financial institution and material concerning repayment. A general third-party statement concerning the lender's alleged activities was relevant for scrutiny but did not identify this loan as an accommodation entry. No inconsistency in the transfer or confirmation, source-tracing material, or inquiry result discrediting the lender's financial records was identified. An untested general statement could not displace the transaction-specific evidence without an inquiry addressing that evidence.

Conclusion: The loan was satisfactorily explained and could not be treated as unexplained cash credit; its addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether inferred commission expenditure of Rs. 12,420 was assessable under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69C applies only where expenditure incurred by the assessee is established and its source remains unexplained. The commission was inferred solely by applying a rate stated in connection with alleged bogus transactions to the loan amount. No payment, accounting entry, withdrawal or other evidence established that the assessee had incurred commission expenditure. The assessment record also did not show that a distinct proposed commission variation had been put to the assessee.

Conclusion: In the absence of evidence that commission expenditure was incurred, the addition under section 69C was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest of Rs. 1,69,003 relating to the loan could be disallowed.

Analysis: The disallowance rested solely on the treatment of the principal loan as unexplained. That basis failed upon acceptance of the loan explanation. Further, no separate deduction of the stated interest was identified as having been claimed in computing income. Under the presumptive scheme in section 44ADA, deductions otherwise allowable under sections 30 to 38 are deemed to have been given effect in computing professional income.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance lacked an independent basis and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: None of the three disputed adjustments could be retained, and the income is to be recomputed after giving effect to their deletion.

Ratio Decidendi: A general third-party allegation concerning a lender cannot, without transaction-specific rebuttal or inquiry, displace documentary evidence establishing the identity, prima facie capacity and genuineness of a loan credit.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated through a notice issued after 01.04.2021, were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Revenue's recorded concession applicable to Assessment Year 2015-16 required notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 to be dropped, as they could not be completed within the period preserved under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The original notice was issued on 25.06.2021 and the consequential notice was issued on 27.07.2022. Binding precedents consequently treated such reassessment notices for that assessment year as time-barred.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction; the reassessment order was bad in law and quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether digital search material established the assessee's unrecorded cash payment towards purchase of property; and (ii) Whether the whole unrecorded cash payment was assessable as unexplained money and taxable under section 115BBE.

Issue (i): Whether digital search material established the assessee's unrecorded cash payment towards purchase of property.

Analysis: The digital ledger recovered during the search recorded the cash payment, and the registered purchase documents corroborated the assessee's acquisition of the relevant unit. The explanation that sufficient cash had been generated was unsupported by documentary evidence. The material was therefore sufficient in income-tax proceedings to establish the unrecorded payment.

Conclusion: The unrecorded cash payment of Rs. 12,64,000 was established. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the whole unrecorded cash payment was assessable as unexplained money and taxable under section 115BBE.

Analysis: The charge is on income and not on gross receipts. Applying the principle that only the profit element embedded in undisclosed receipts is assessable, the full amount of the cash payment could not be assessed as income. The appropriate addition was fixed at 10% of the payment, chargeable at normal rates rather than under section 115BBE.

Conclusion: Only Rs. 1,26,400, being 10% of the unrecorded cash payment, is assessable at normal rates. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessable income is confined to the profit element of 10% embedded in the unrecorded cash payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where unrecorded receipts or payments are proved, only the embedded profit component, rather than the gross amount, is taxable as income.

Issues: Whether an addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of registration could be sustained where the agreement for sale was earlier and part consideration had been paid through an account-payee cheque before that agreement.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 56(2)(x) permits adoption of the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement where the agreement date and registration date differ. The second proviso applies where whole or part of the consideration is paid through an account-payee cheque, bank draft, electronic clearing system, or prescribed electronic mode on or before the agreement date. The record disclosed payment of Rs. 90,000 through account-payee cheque before the agreement, a notarised circle-rate document for the relevant agreement period, and bank and source documents. Information sought from the Sub-Registrar under Section 133(6) was not received; that non-response could not justify rejection of the assessee's evidence or adoption of the registration-date stamp duty value.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 10,44,141 under Section 56(2)(x) was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether additions under Section 68 for the purported unsecured credits were sustainable; and (ii) Whether the disallowance of discount expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of cotton business was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether additions under Section 68 for the purported unsecured credits were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 68 applies to sums credited in the relevant year that remain unexplained. The ledger movements showed that one alleged credit represented repayment rather than a fresh receipt, another comprised an opening balance, repayments and recovery of an advance made during the year, and the remaining credit was supported by banking records establishing movement of funds and the fact of the loan.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 68 in respect of the adjudicated purported credits were not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of discount expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of cotton business was sustainable.

Analysis: The discount expenditure was supported by ledger records and was explained as arising from commercial factors such as samples, weight shortage and quality issues. It was incurred consistently in other years and constituted approximately 0.19% of total sales, consistent with the nature of the business.

Conclusion: The discount expenditure was allowable and its disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned cash-credit additions and discount-expense disallowance could not be sustained on the established fund movements and business records.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit could be denied for Assessment Year 2022-23 because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date for filing the return under section 139(1).

Analysis: Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by Notification No. 100/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and effective from 01.04.2022, permitted Form No. 67 to be filed on or before the end of the relevant assessment year. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the extended deadline was 31.03.2023. Form No. 67 filed on 31.08.2022 was therefore within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit cannot be denied as time-barred; the claim is allowable in favour of the assessee, subject to verification of the remaining conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for unsecured loans and related interest could be made under Section 153A in completed or unabated assessments without incriminating material found during the search; (ii) Whether the unsecured loan credits and the related interest expenditure were liable to addition under Sections 68 and 69C.

Issue (i): Whether additions for unsecured loans and related interest could be made under Section 153A in completed or unabated assessments without incriminating material found during the search.

Analysis: For a completed or unabated assessment, Section 153A permits an addition only where incriminating material found during the search has a direct nexus with that addition. The loan entries were disclosed in the regular books and audited financial statements. Statements recorded during search did not admit that the loans were accommodation entries or represented undisclosed income. Spot verification, third-party material obtained in a separate search, and post-search enquiries, bank analysis and other material gathered during assessment did not constitute incriminating material found during the assessee's search. The evidentiary burden applicable to a cash-credit addition cannot replace the jurisdictional condition for disturbing an unabated assessment.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 153A, including the related interest disallowances, were without jurisdiction and were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the unsecured loan credits and the related interest expenditure were liable to addition under Sections 68 and 69C.

Analysis: The loan transactions were received through banking channels, supported by confirmations and lender records, and were subsequently repaid through banking channels. The banking trail, repayment, and supporting financial documentation established the genuineness of the loan transactions and the lenders' creditworthiness. Once the principal loan additions failed, the related interest disallowances could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The additions of unsecured loans under Section 68 and the consequential disallowances of interest under Section 69C were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The completed assessments could not be disturbed on the material relied upon, and no impugned loan or interest adjustment survives.

Ratio Decidendi: In a completed or unabated assessment, an addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search that directly relates to the addition; subsequently gathered or third-party material cannot supply that jurisdictional requirement.

Issues: Whether an amount deposited under protest during investigation carries interest at 12% per annum on its refund, rather than 6% per annum.

Analysis: The amount was deposited during investigation under protest and was not a pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, Section 35FF of that Act did not govern the claim. The applicable jurisdictional High Court precedent on delayed refund of such deposit supported interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment until realisation.

Conclusion: The appellants are entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit until realisation, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the cancellation proceedings should be set aside for vagueness of the show-cause notice, or restored to permit a response on the stated basis for cancellation.

Analysis: The original notice merely referred to Rule 21(b) and an allegation concerning issuance of invoices or bills without supply. Invalidation on the asserted ground of vagueness was declined because the concern was not raised with supporting material at the initial stage and the alleged reply was not placed on record. The subsequent revocation notice disclosed the specific allegation of ineligible input tax credit based on transactions with a non-existent or fake entity, but no response was filed to that notice. As documents were asserted to be available to establish genuine transactions, restoration to the original authority for a fresh response and factual determination was appropriate.

Conclusion: The original show-cause notice remains undisturbed; the cancellation order and the subsequent adverse orders are set aside, and the proceedings are restored to the original authority for determination after permitting a response and supporting documents.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 92 lakh for allegedly unexplained jewellery under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable; (ii) Whether the addition of Rs. 21 lakh for allegedly unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 92 lakh for allegedly unexplained jewellery under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable.

Analysis: The jewellery was found by the NIA, was returned pursuant to a court order, and was neither inspected nor valued by the Income-tax Department. The assessee furnished affidavits from family members and in-laws, supported by marriage photographs, to establish that the jewellery belonged to his late wife and married daughters and had been received on marriage and other customary occasions. Retention of married daughters' streedhan at their parental home is consistent with customary practice and is not legally prohibited. Under CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, the permissible holding for the wife and three married daughters alone was 2 kilograms; the assessee's financial status, long history of returned income, and the position of other family members also supported the explanation. In the absence of valuation and cogent material linking the jewellery to undisclosed income of the relevant year, the balance addition was an impermissible ad hoc addition.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 92 lakh for jewellery is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 21 lakh for allegedly unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable.

Analysis: Bank statements and withdrawal details showed that the assessee and his family members had withdrawn cash substantially exceeding the Rs. 21 lakh found during the search. The documented withdrawals satisfactorily explained the source of the cash.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 21 lakh for cash is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both additions made as unexplained assets are unsustainable on the evidentiary record.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained assets cannot rest on an ad hoc estimate where credible evidence establishes customary ownership and source, and the Revenue lacks valuation or other cogent material disproving that explanation.