Unsigned draft deed alone cannot prove undisclosed income without corroboration, so the addition was deleted.

An unsigned draft deed recovered from a third party's computer was treated as insufficient to justify an addition where no signed document from the assessee or the sellers was found and no independent corroboration established that the higher consideration had actually passed. The deed writer denied knowledge of any real transaction at the stated value and explained that copied or pasted drafting material could create discrepancies. In the absence of corroborative evidence or further enquiry, the document alone could not prove undisclosed income, and the deletion of the addition was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether addition made on the basis of an unsigned seized deed found from a third party's computer, without corroborative evidence, was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition was based only on a soft copy of a draft deed recovered from the computer of the deed writer. The deed writer denied knowledge of any actual transaction at the stated consideration and explained that drafting files could contain copied or pasted material causing discrepancies. No signed deed from the assessee or the sellers was found, and no independent enquiry or corroborative material was brought to establish that the higher consideration had in fact passed. On these facts, the unsigned document was held insufficient to prove undisclosed income.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and the deletion made by the first appellate authority was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

---