Rebuttable search-seizure presumption cannot alone sustain higher sale consideration without proper enquiry and corroboration.

A seizure-based presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C was treated as rebuttable and insufficient by itself to sustain an addition where the registered sale deed and agreement to sell supported the declared consideration, and the alleged higher-value receipt was unsigned and contradicted by other material. Because the Assessing Officer had not made adequate enquiry, including recording statements of persons connected with the receipt and transaction, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition based on the alleged higher sale consideration of the property could be sustained on the strength of the seized receipt and the presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether the matter required fresh enquiry by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The seized agreement to sell and the registered sale deed supported the declared consideration of Rs. 81 lakhs, whereas the Department relied on a separate receipt mentioning Rs. 2.25 crores. The receipt was not signed by either the assessee or the purchaser, and the record also showed inconsistent versions regarding the consideration. In these circumstances, the presumption arising from search seizure material was treated as rebuttable and not sufficient, by itself, to conclude the actual sale consideration. The assessment authority had not carried out adequate enquiry by recording statements of the material persons connected with the receipt and the transaction.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally upheld and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper enquiry and fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

---