https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78510 Search and seizure scrutiny of alleged undisclosed investments rested on statements recorded under section 132(4); absence of independent corroborative evidence and a subsequent retraction meant admissions could not sustain additions. Addition of Rs. 4 lakhs for construction and Rs. 6 lakhs based on the recorded statement were deleted for lack of proof, while Rs. 1 lakh of unaccounted cash was confirmed. Holdings on jewellery and furniture were disallowed as normal family holding or supported by documentary proof and non-payment at the time of search, respectively. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jan 2026 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78510 Search and seizure scrutiny of alleged undisclosed investments rested on statements recorded under section 132(4); absence of independent corroborative evidence and a subsequent retraction meant admissions could not sustain additions. Addition of Rs. 4 lakhs for construction and Rs. 6 lakhs based on the recorded statement were deleted for lack of proof, while Rs. 1 lakh of unaccounted cash was confirmed. Holdings on jewellery and furniture were disallowed as normal family holding or supported by documentary proof and non-payment at the time of search, respectively. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78510