Seized ambiguous agreement cannot by itself prove on-money receipt or sustain a consequential penalty.

An unsigned, internally inconsistent seized agreement to sell, unsupported by witnesses, drafting details, or independent verification, cannot by itself be treated as reliable proof of unaccounted on-money. Where the document lacks the indicia of a concluded and unambiguous transaction and no corroboration exists for the alleged market value or cash receipt, the addition for undisclosed consideration is unsustainable. On that basis, the consequential penalty also cannot survive because it depends on the same unproven foundation. The principle is that an unexecuted or ambiguous seized document, without corroboration, does not justify a conclusive inference of undisclosed consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged agreement to sell recovered in search proceedings could be treated as a reliable and admissible basis to sustain the addition for alleged receipt of unaccounted on-money and the consequential penalty.

Analysis: The agreement was found to be unsigned by the purchasers, unsupported by witnesses or drafting particulars, and internally inconsistent on material aspects. The document also did not include the beneficiary intermediary as a party, and no independent enquiry was made to verify the alleged market value or receipt of cash. In these circumstances, the document lacked the sanctity of a concluded and unambiguous agreement and could not by itself furnish conclusive proof of undisclosed consideration.

Conclusion: The addition based on the alleged on-money receipt was unsustainable, and the consequential penalty also could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: An unexecuted or intrinsically ambiguous seized document, without corroboration, cannot by itself justify a conclusive inference of undisclosed consideration or sustain a consequential penalty.

---