Rebuttable presumption over cash found in search can be displaced by consistent third-party ownership explanation and supporting affidavit.

Cash found during a search is subject to a rebuttable presumption of ownership under section 132(4A), but that presumption can be displaced by a consistent explanation supported by confirmation and affidavit. Where the assessee consistently claimed that the cash belonged to a third party and the core explanation remained unchanged, a variation only in collateral details about how the cash was brought or kept was not enough to treat the amount as unexplained money. On that record, the addition under section 69A was held unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A in respect of cash found during search was sustainable when the assessee consistently claimed that the cash belonged to a third party and supported that claim by confirmation and affidavit.

Analysis: Cash found in the assessee's premises attracts the presumption under section 132(4A), but that presumption is rebuttable. The assessee maintained the same basic stand throughout the proceedings that the cash belonged to his brother-in-law, and the claim was supported by a confirmation and sworn affidavit. A variation in the description of how the cash was brought and kept was held not, by itself, enough to discredit the core explanation or to treat the cash as the assessee's unexplained money. In these circumstances, the material on record did not justify sustaining the addition merely because one supporting circumstance was not independently proved.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebuttable statutory presumption as to ownership of cash found during search can be displaced by a consistent explanation supported by confirmation and affidavit, and a mere discrepancy in collateral details does not, without more, justify an addition for unexplained money.

---