Presumption of ownership and human probabilities govern unexplained cash, while an unencashed cheque without drawee name is not income.

Cash found in an assessee's possession is subject to a presumption of ownership, and the explanation for its source must be credible and consistent with surrounding circumstances and normal business probability; on the stated facts, the cash addition was upheld as unexplained income. An undated cheque without the name of the drawee, which was not encashed and had no realised monetary value, cannot by itself be treated as taxable income; the cheque addition was deleted. The note reflects partial relief where one addition is sustained and the other is rejected on the basis of evidentiary value and the test of human probabilities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash of Rs. 53,90,000 found in the assessee's possession was to be treated as unexplained income; (ii) Whether addition of Rs. 2,50,000 in respect of an undated cheque without the name of the drawee was justified.

Issue (i): Whether cash of Rs. 53,90,000 found in the assessee's possession was to be treated as unexplained income.

Analysis: The assessee failed to explain the source of cash at the time of seizure and did not satisfactorily substantiate the later explanation that it belonged to the firm. The surrounding circumstances, including the unusual rise in sales, the timing of purchases and sales entries, the capital position of the assessee in the firm, and the improbability of carrying such a large amount in the manner explained, were inconsistent with normal business conduct. The presumption arising from possession was not rebutted, and the explanation was not accepted on the test of human probabilities.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 53,90,000 as unexplained income was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether addition of Rs. 2,50,000 in respect of an undated cheque without the name of the drawee was justified.

Analysis: The cheque did not bear the name of the drawee and was not encashed by the assessee. In the absence of any realized monetary value, the cheque could not be treated as income in the hands of the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2,50,000 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cash addition was sustained, but the cheque addition was deleted, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cash is found in a person's possession, the statutory presumption of ownership must be rebutted by a credible explanation supported by surrounding circumstances and normal business probability; an unencashed cheque without identified drawee does not by itself constitute taxable income.

---