Unexplained investment in property upheld where corroborated third-party evidence of higher consideration remained unrebutted.

A corroborated third-party statement, supported by bank deposits and a consent letter, was treated as reliable evidence of higher cash consideration for property purchase. The assessee failed to show that the transferor's statement was obtained under duress or otherwise discredited, and the assessment reopening was supported by material giving reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. As the assessee also had the opportunity to cross-examine the seller and did not rebut the evidence, the addition for unexplained investment was sustained and the appellate order upholding the assessment was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made towards unexplained money on account of alleged higher cash consideration for purchase of property was liable to be deleted.

Analysis: The assessee did not produce any material to show that the statement of the transferor, supported by bank deposits and a consent letter, was obtained under duress or was otherwise unreliable. The assessment was reopened on the basis of material giving rise to reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the assessee was given opportunity, including cross-examination of the seller. The evidentiary material remained unrebutted, and no persuasive basis was shown to dislodge the finding that the actual consideration exceeded the registered value.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment was rightly sustained and the issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order upholding the assessment was affirmed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a corroborated third-party statement and supporting evidence remain unrebutted, and the assessee fails to disprove the alleged higher consideration or establish coercion, the addition towards unexplained investment is sustainable.

---