Seized loose paper cannot alone sustain an addition for alleged unaccounted sale consideration without independent corroboration.

A loose seized paper, by itself, could not justify an addition for alleged cash consideration on sale of immovable property where it lacked complete particulars of the nature, date, and receipt of cash. The assessee's statement during search was not treated as an admission of on-money, and the purchasers on oath denied any cash over and above the registered sale price. The statutory presumption attached to seized material was treated as rebuttable; once the registered sale deeds and purchaser statements were produced, the burden shifted to the Revenue to bring independent corroboration. In the absence of forensic or other supporting evidence, the addition could not be sustained and the deletion was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition towards alleged cash consideration received on sale of immovable property could be sustained on the basis of a seized loose paper, and whether the statutory presumptions under the search provisions stood rebutted in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The seized paper was held to be insufficient on its own because it did not contain complete and reliable particulars showing the nature, date or actual receipt of cash. The assessee's statement during search did not amount to an admission of receipt of on-money, and the purchasers examined on oath also denied payment of any cash over and above the registered sale consideration. The presumption attached to seized material under the search provisions was treated as rebuttable, and once the assessee produced registered sale deeds and the purchasers denied any off-record payment, the burden lay on the Revenue to bring independent corroboration. No such corroborative material, forensic proof, or evidence of the year and manner of alleged cash payment was brought on record.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained merely on the basis of the seized loose paper, and the deletion made by the first appellate authority was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish actual receipt of undisclosed cash consideration, so the assessed addition was not restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A loose sheet or seized paper, by itself, cannot justify an addition for undisclosed sale consideration unless the Revenue corroborates it with independent evidence when the assessee rebuts the statutory presumption.

---