Presumption under section 292C could not sustain an addition where factual findings covered the alleged undisclosed investment.

Additions based on search material and the presumption under section 292C were held unsustainable where the factual findings showed the assessee had purchased only 7.4 vighas of land, not the larger area estimated by the Assessing Officer, and the alleged undisclosed investment was already covered by the disclosure made in the return after search. On those facts, the appellate authority and Tribunal found no basis for treating the difference in valuation as unexplained investment, and no substantial question of law arose from that factual appreciation. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on the basis of search material and the presumption under section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained despite the finding that the land purchased was only 7.4 vighas and the alleged undisclosed amount was already covered by the assessee's disclosure.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer proceeded on an estimated purchase of 40.58 vighas and treated the difference between the estimated cost and the disclosed price as undisclosed investment. The appellate authority, as affirmed by the Tribunal, found as a matter of fact that the assessee had purchased only 7.4 vighas during the relevant year and that even on the Revenue's own valuation the alleged undisclosed amount stood covered by the disclosure of Rs. 5 lakhs made in the return pursuant to search. On those facts, no infirmity in the Tribunal's approach was shown and no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and the appeal failed.

---