Corroborative evidence and transaction genuineness defeated unexplained investment addition; one disputed sum was remanded for fresh inquiry.

Corroborative evidence showing the source and genuineness of a disputed transaction can defeat additions for unexplained investment or cash credit; an unregistered agreement may still be considered for collateral purposes when testing the transaction's genuineness. On the first issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation supported by the husband's and son's statements and deleted the addition for unexplained investment. On the second issue, where bank evidence and surrounding facts were not enough for a final finding and one alleged recipient had died, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh factual inquiry and a new decision after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the addition of Rs. 38,00,000 made towards alleged unexplained investment could be sustained when the assessee claimed to have explained the source through her husband and son; (ii) whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 required fresh examination in view of the assessee's claim that the amount had been advanced earlier and later received back.

Issue (i): whether the addition of Rs. 38,00,000 made towards alleged unexplained investment could be sustained when the assessee claimed to have explained the source through her husband and son.

Analysis: The assessee, her husband and her son had been examined, and their statements were found to support the source of the disputed deposits. The husband explained receipt of Rs. 30,00,000 from purchasers under an agreement for sale of property, and the son explained payment of Rs. 8,00,000 through banking channels. The rejection by the lower authorities rested on the view that the agreement was unregistered and the explanation was not sufficiently proved. The Tribunal held that the explanation was supported by material on record and that an unregistered document could still be relied upon for collateral purposes to test the genuineness of the transaction.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 38,00,000 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 required fresh examination in view of the assessee's claim that the amount had been advanced earlier and later received back.

Analysis: The assessee produced bank evidence showing withdrawal of the amount said to have been advanced to two persons, and it was also noted that one of the alleged recipients had died before the proceedings. In these circumstances, the existing material was considered insufficient for a final adjudication on the merits of the claim and a fresh factual inquiry was warranted.

Conclusion: The issue of Rs. 25,00,000 was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the major addition relating to Rs. 38,00,000, while the balance dispute concerning Rs. 25,00,000 was sent back for re-adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the assessee substantiates the source and genuineness of the transaction with corroborative evidence, an addition under sections 68 and 69 cannot be sustained; where the factual foundation remains incomplete, remand is appropriate for fresh inquiry.

---