https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472951 Validity of search authorisation under Section 132 cannot be challenged through an assessment appeal. For seized cash, a taxpayer's unsupported explanation of customer collections may fail the test of human probabilities and justify treatment as unexplained money under Sections 69A and 115BBE. However, the established nature of a milk and dairy-products business operating in an unorganised sector may make it inappropriate to treat the entire seized cash as unexplained. A fact-specific lump-sum addition was consequently considered appropriate, without creating a precedent. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2026 13:56:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472951 Validity of search authorisation under Section 132 cannot be challenged through an assessment appeal. For seized cash, a taxpayer's unsupported explanation of customer collections may fail the test of human probabilities and justify treatment as unexplained money under Sections 69A and 115BBE. However, the established nature of a milk and dairy-products business operating in an unorganised sector may make it inappropriate to treat the entire seized cash as unexplained. A fact-specific lump-sum addition was consequently considered appropriate, without creating a precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472951