Unexplained cash seizure under section 69A sustained where no contemporaneous evidence proved source or availability of funds.

Cash seized from employees was treated as unexplained money because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous bank statements, employee confirmations, acknowledgments, or a day-wise cash trail showing the source and availability of the cash on the relevant date. In the absence of primary and corroborative evidence, the burden under section 69A was not discharged, and the addition was sustained. The challenge to the reassessment proceedings also failed because the reopening was based on requisition under section 132A, and no independent legal defect in the reassessment process was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cash of Rs. 35,00,000 seized from the employees was satisfactorily explained so as to displace addition as unexplained money under section 69A. (ii) Whether the challenge to the reassessment notice and proceedings was sustainable where the case was reopened on requisition under section 132A.

Issue (i): Whether the cash of Rs. 35,00,000 seized from the employees was satisfactorily explained so as to displace addition as unexplained money under section 69A.

Analysis: The assessee claimed that the cash represented earlier bank withdrawals and return of advances from employees, but no bank statements, employee confirmations, acknowledgments, or day-wise cash trail were produced before the Tribunal. The explanation remained unsupported by contemporaneous records showing that the cash was available and identifiable on the date of interception. In the absence of primary and corroborative evidence, the explanation did not satisfy the statutory burden to explain the source and recording of the cash.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was rightly sustained and the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the reassessment notice and proceedings was sustainable where the case was reopened on requisition under section 132A.

Analysis: The reopening was based on requisition proceedings under section 132A and not on any independent infirmity in the reassessment action shown by the assessee. No substantive ground was established to show illegality in the reopening process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment proceedings fails and the issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition was maintained and the reassessment challenge was rejected, leaving the assessee without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A cash seizure is not explained for purposes of section 69A unless supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing the source, movement, and availability of the cash on the relevant date; a reopening founded on requisition under section 132A is not invalid merely because it is challenged in the absence of any demonstrated legal defect.

---