https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790107 A seized paper alleging cash payment for property was held insufficient to sustain an addition for unexplained investment under section 69B because it lacked transaction particulars, signatures and corroboration. The statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C were treated as rebutted by the assessee through the seller's affidavit confirming receipt as per the registered sale deeds and a valuation report supporting the declared consideration. In the absence of inquiry from the seller or other supporting evidence, the addition could not rest on conjecture, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790107 A seized paper alleging cash payment for property was held insufficient to sustain an addition for unexplained investment under section 69B because it lacked transaction particulars, signatures and corroboration. The statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C were treated as rebutted by the assessee through the seller's affidavit confirming receipt as per the registered sale deeds and a valuation report supporting the declared consideration. In the absence of inquiry from the seller or other supporting evidence, the addition could not rest on conjecture, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790107