https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187793 In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, oral evidence was admissible to show that facially genuine loan papers were sham transactions created after the search to explain cash found with the accused, and Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar such proof by a stranger to the documents. The alleged loan was therefore held not genuine, and the cash remained unexplained. Travelling allowance received during the check period was not treated as income for computing known sources unless actual savings from it were proved; no such proof was produced, so it was excluded. The conviction for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income was sustained. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:17:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187793 In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, oral evidence was admissible to show that facially genuine loan papers were sham transactions created after the search to explain cash found with the accused, and Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar such proof by a stranger to the documents. The alleged loan was therefore held not genuine, and the cash remained unexplained. Travelling allowance received during the check period was not treated as income for computing known sources unless actual savings from it were proved; no such proof was produced, so it was excluded. The conviction for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187793