Unexplained property investment addition fails without specific evidence of extra cash payment beyond registered sale consideration.

An addition for unexplained investment in immovable property was found unsustainable where the Revenue relied on a general seller's statement and did not produce cogent, specific or corroborative material linking the assessee to any cash payment over and above the registered sale consideration. The assessee's explanation was accepted in part, but the remaining addition lacked a legally sustainable evidentiary foundation and rested on surmises and conjectures. The addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property was sustainable in the absence of cogent evidence linking the assessee to any cash payment over and above the registered sale consideration.

Analysis: The reassessment arose from the assessee's purchase of property with other co-purchasers, where the Revenue alleged that consideration had been paid beyond the amount reflected in the registered deed. The record showed that the assessee's explanation for a part of the investment had been accepted, but the balance addition was sustained mainly on the basis of a seller's general statement without any specific and direct material against the assessee. In the absence of corroborative evidence showing extra payment by the assessee, the inference drawn by the Revenue was held to rest on surmises and conjectures rather than on a legally sustainable evidentiary foundation.

Conclusion: The addition was unsustainable and was deleted; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---