Unexplained cash additions reversed where ownership, possession or contemporaneous bank evidence fail to attribute seized locker cash to taxpayer.

Unexplained-cash additions under section 69A were assessed against an assessee on cash seized from two bank lockers; the note applies the principle that revenue must establish ownership, possession or control of seized cash to attribute it to the assessee, and that search presumptions do not automatically apply to jointly-held or third-party lockers. Contemporaneous bank certificates showing no locker operation during the relevant period and statements identifying cash as belonging to the spouse were held relevant to negate attribution; accordingly, the addition was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash seized from two bank lockers can be sustained in the hands of the assessee for AY 2023-24.

Analysis: The issue involves (a) whether the presumption arising from search and seizure applies to the assessee in respect of cash found in a locker held jointly with the spouse and in a locker held solely in the spouse's name, and (b) whether contemporaneous bank evidence and absence of operation during the relevant period negate the invocation of unexplained cash addition. Relevant legal framework includes the principles governing additions for unexplained cash and the need to establish ownership, possession or control of seized cash before sustaining additions in an assessee's hands. Material facts relied upon include bank certificates showing last operation date of the jointly held locker as 29.02.2020, the sole ownership of the other locker by the spouse, statements recorded during search identifying part of the cash as belonging to the spouse, and absence of documentary evidence linking the seized cash to the assessee for the year under appeal. The analysis applies the requirement that revenue must show sufficient material to attribute the seized cash to the assessee and considers that evidence of non-operation and third-party ownership are relevant to that attribution.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- under section 69A is not sustainable in the hands of the assessee and is deleted; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

---