Ownership of cash in joint premises must follow evidence, and additions fail when the wife's claim is supported by facts.

Cash found at a common residence and in a joint locker could not be assessed in the assessee's hands on a substantive basis where the wife claimed ownership and explained the source and use of the money. Her statement was consistent with the surrounding facts, including repeated operation of the locker by her and no recent operation by the assessee. Joint residence or locker connection, by itself, was insufficient to treat the cash as belonging to the assessee. The further addition linked to the other locker was also inconsistent with the finding that the cash belonged to the wife. The additions in the assessee's hands were therefore directed to be deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the additions of cash found during search and from lockers could be sustained in the assessee's hands on substantive basis when the money was claimed by the assessee's wife and the surrounding facts indicated her ownership.

Analysis: The cash found at the common residence and in the joint locker was claimed by the wife, whose statement explained the source and use of the money. The assessee's statement was consistent with that claim. The locker evidence also showed repeated operation by the wife and no operation by the assessee close to the date of search. In these circumstances, the cash could not be treated as belonging to the assessee merely because the premises or locker were jointly connected. The observation sustaining a further addition in the assessee's hands in respect of the other locker was also inconsistent with the finding that the cash belonged to the wife.

Conclusion: The additions made in the assessee's hands were not sustainable and were directed to be deleted.

---