Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69B on the basis of a seized paper reflecting alleged cash payment towards purchase of property was sustainable, and whether the statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C stood rebutted.
Analysis: The seized paper was treated as an unauthenticated and non-corroborated document lacking name, date, property particulars and signatures, and therefore not sufficient by itself to establish unaccounted investment. No inquiry was made from the seller, and the assessee placed the seller's affidavit confirming receipt of consideration as per the registered sale deeds. The valuation report also supported the declared consideration. In these circumstances, the presumption arising from the search material stood rebutted and the addition could not rest on conjecture.
Conclusion: The addition under section 69B was rightly deleted, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were dismissed and the deletions made by the first appellate authority were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A seized paper without corroboration, particulars of the transaction, or supporting inquiry cannot by itself justify an addition for unexplained investment where the statutory presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence.