Per Agarwal, JM - These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue arising out of the assessee’s assessment for assessment year 1985-86.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.

3. The assessee, inter alia, carried on business of purchase and sale of cement in the name of Delhi Cement Company. The relevant accounting period ended on the 30th of September, 1984. There was a search at the assessee’s shop on 12th October, 1983. During the said search cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330 was found from the said shop, out of which Rs. 1,85,000 was seized. In addition, two sets of ornaments valued at Rs. 38,791 and Rs. 2,50,250 were also recovered from the said shop. Ornaments of the value of Rs. 2,50,250 have been treated by the revenue not to belong to the assessee and have been considered in the case of one Smt. Bimla Rani. Therefore, this item of property was not concerned in the assessment of the assessee. The assessee’s cement godowns were also searched and 57 bags of cement were found short. The search party had taken samples from the stock of cement in the assessee’s godowns and they were sent to the Test House at Calcutta, which reported that the chemical analysis in all the three samples was different. A statement of the assessee, Ashwani Kumar was recorded on 17-10-1983 under section 132, in which explaining the source of cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330 he had stated that the same belong partly to Delhi Cement Company, partly to Dehradun Marble House, in which the assessee was a partner and partly to Shiv Builders. Regarding the ornaments amounting to Rs. 38,791 the assessee had stated that they belong to him personally.

4. A Statement of the assessee was recorded on 21-10-1983 also on which date, one of his godowns was searched and the assessee was asked to explain the reason for the shortage of 57 bags of cement and the assessee’s explanation was that some of the bags had become wet partly and the wet portion was removed and thrown away, with the result that in some of the bags of cement the quantity left was less than the prescribed 50 kg, with the result that there was an ultimate shortage of 57 bags.

5. During a search of the assessee’s shop a slip of paper was found, which contained the following writings:—

About the aforesaid slip the assessee in his statement recorded during the assessment proceedings on 27-2-1986 stated that the same does not pertain to his business and he did not know in whose handwriting the same was written. He also stated that the said slip might belong to some outsider. Regarding the jewellery worth Rs. 38,791 the assessee in his statement dated 27-2-1986 stated that the same was the property of one Sikander Lal, who had borrowed Rs. 26,000 from the assessee on 4-10-1983 and had pledged the said jewellery with the assessee. Regarding the cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330 found during the search of the shop on 12-10-1983, the assessee’s stand in the assessment proceedings was that the same belonged to his business in the name of Delhi Cement Co., and he relied upon his cash book to show that this was the amount of cash-in-hand at the time of search.

6. A search had simultaneously taken place at the residence of the assessee’s father Shri Hakumat Rai, from where another slip was recovered indicating that Hakumat Rai, received two sums of Rs. 1,00,000 each from Ashu and had made payment of Rs. 3 lacs to Ashu. The assessee in his statement dated 27-2-1986 admitted that he is known by the short name of Ashu.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid material the assessing officer made various additions to the assessee’s income. Regarding cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330 he did not accept the assessee’s explanation because of the variation in the assessee’s stand. As already stated in the statement recorded on 17-10-1983 the assessee had claimed that the cash belonged to Delhi Cement Co., Dehradun Marble House and Shiv Builders and in the assessment proceedings the whole amount was claimed to belong to Delhi Cement Company. The assessing officer, therefore, treated the entire amount of Rs. 1,86,330 as unexplained and added the same to the assessee’s income. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) has deleted this amount holding that by virtue of section 69-A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 this was taxable in assessment year 1984-85 as the cash was recovered in the financial year 1983-84, which was the previous year for assessment year 1984- 85. Against this part of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order the revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal. In the revenue’s appeal the only ground relates to the deletion of Rs. 1,86,330 contending that this amount was taxable in assessment year 1985-86 only. The assessee in its appeal also challenges the CIT(A)’s order contending that the assessee’s explanation should have been accepted and the amount should be deleted on merits instead of on the technical point that the same falls for consideration in assessment year 1984-85.

8. Regarding the jewellery of Rs. 38,791 the assessing officer rejected the assessee’s explanation because of the shift in the assessee’s stand as indicated above. He, therefore, added this amount to the assessee’s income. On appeal the learned CIT(A) has set aside the assessing officer’s order on this point and directed the assessing officer to re-investigate this point and, if necessary, examine Sikander Lal. The assessee challenges this direction of the CIT (Appeals).

9. On the basis of the slip found from the assessee’s shop the contents of which have been reproduced above, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 21,340 as assessee’s income. On appeal the learned CIT(Appeals) enhanced this addition to Rs. 31,668 and this amount is the subject matter of ground No. 3 in the assessee’s appeal.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid slip the assessing officer made another addition of Rs. 8,53,618 to the assessee’s income as unexplained investment. This was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). This is being challenged by the assessee in the present appeal. Another addition of Rs. 2 lacs was made by the assessing officer to the assessee’s income on the basis of the shortage of 57 bags of cement and also on the basis of the report of the National Test House. The assessing officer took the view that these facts indicate that there are some unexplained dealings and stock sales and purchases. which arc out of the books. He, therefore, added Rs. 2 lacs as extra income of the assessee. This addition was also confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and is being challenged in the present appeal by the assessee.

11. Lastly, on the basis of the slip found in the house of Hakumat Rai, a sum of Rs. 3 lacs was added to the assessee’s income and this addition has also been confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and is challenged by the assessee in the present appeal.

12. We will now deal with the common point involved in the two appeals which relates to the addition of Rs. 1,86,330. In this regard the assessing officer’s observations made in the assessment order are as below:

"During the year under consideration search and seizure operation was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 12-10-1983. Cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330, jewellery worth Rs. 38,791 and Rs. 2,50,250 were found out of which cash amounting to Rs. 1,85,000 and jewellery worth Rs. 38,791 and Rs. 2,29,432 were seized. No ledger or cash book for the year was seized. In explanation to the availability of cash the assessee had deposed in his statement before the ADI on 17-10-1983 that the cash pertained partly to M/s Shiv Builders, partly to M/s Dehradun Marble House and partly to M/s Delhi Cement Co. However, the entry for the whole amount of Cash, i.e., Rs. 1,86,330 was incorporated in the cash book of the concern produced during the assessment proceedings. The assessee was asked to explain the same, in response to which he stated that earlier he used to keep cash of the above mentioned concerns and he was under the impression that the same were, still with him. The explanation of the assessee is not sustainable because it conflicts with his earlier statement. The cash available on the date of search Rs. 1,86,330 thus remains unexplained and is being added to the income of the assessee."

The above observations would show that the assessee’s explanation that the sum of Rs. 1,86,330 was the cash-in-hand of Delhi Cement Company has been disbelieved for the only reason that in his statement recorded on 17-10-1983, the assessee had stated that the cash belonged partly to Shiv Builders, partly to M/s Dehradun Marble House and partly to Delhi Cement Company. The assessee’s business premises and residence were searched simultaneously and the assessee was not present at the shop at the time of the recovery of cash amounting to Rs. 1,86,330. The search in this case continued for several days and even on 21-10-1983, one of the godowns was searched. During the search the assessee’s regular books of accounts, i.e., cash book etc. were not found either at the business premises or at the residence of the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative did not point out if any attempt was made in that direction. In the statements of the assessee recorded during the course of the search he was not asked about the whereabouts of the cash book. ledger etc. During the search the bill books etc. for the sale of the cement were found and were seized from the shop and in the assessment proceedings the assessee produced the cash book of Delhi Cement Co. which showed that on 12-10-1983 the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 1,86,330. This is the amount found present in the shop at the time of the search. The assessee has filed copy of the cash book. entries from 1-10-1983 onwards to show how the cash balance that was Rs. 1,04,643 on 1- 10-1983 had risen to Rs. 1,86,330. These entries show that the cash-in-hand represented mainly amounts received on account of sale of cement. The voucher numbers are mentioned in the cash book. On 11-10-1983 there is an entry of receipt of Rs. 35,400 from Dehradun Marble House. During the hearing before us the learned Departmental Representative told us that all the entries in the cash book tally with the bills etc. that were recovered from the shop during the search. At the time of his statement on 17-10-1983 the assessee must have been still in a state of shock resulting from the search and probably had no time to verify the facts and, therefore, when suddenly on 17-10-1983 he was asked about the source of the cash he made a general statement that the cash belonged to three concerns in which he was admittedly concerned. Since on 11-10-1983 a sum of Rs. 35,400 was received from Dehradun Marble House, the assessee could with some justification say that a part of the cash belonged to Dehradun Marble House. When the assessee produced the cash book and the entries in the cash book were verifiable from the other papers that were seized by the department on 12-10-1983, the assessee’s explanation could not be rejected for a minor lapse. It is important to remember that no other cash is shown to have been recovered either from the house or from the godowns belonging to the assessee. The assessee had a substantial business in cement and his sales for the year under consideration were of the order of Rs. 1,10,23,744. If the revenues stand that this entire amount of Rs. 1,86,330 is unexplained cash of the assessee is accepted, then it would mean that the assessee had no cash-in-hand for such a large scale business. This is absolutely unnatural. It is also to be remembered that even during the search the whole amount was not seized and only Rs. 1,85,000 were seized. We, therefore, hold that the source of this amount was properly explained to be the cash-in-hand of Delhi Cement Co., which was duly supported by the assessee’s cash book and sale vouchers etc.

13. Regarding the CIT(Appeals)’s finding that this amount should be considered for assessment year 1984-85 as it was the unexplained money within the meaning of section 69-A, we are of the view that in view of our above finding this controversy has become redundant. In any case even otherwise in view of the entries in the cash book recording the said amount as cash balance on 12-10-1983, it was a case to which section 68 could be applied if the assessee was not able to establish the genuineness of the transactions showing receipt of cash from sale of cement and other sources. The assessing officer does not seem to have made that attempt and the learned Departmental Representative admitted that the entries in the cash book were verifiable with the bill books etc. We may also mention that although the learned CIT(Appeals) has not examined on merits the sources of this sum, none of them contended that the matter should be restored to CIT(Appeals) for examination of this aspect of the case on merits. In view of the clear admission of the learned Departmental Representative that the sources of cash are explained by the various other documents seized. there is no need for us to refer the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) and that is why we have recorded our finding thereon.

14. For the above reasons we set aside the CIT(Appeals)’s finding that the aforesaid amount should be considered as being relevant for assessment year 1984-85 and we hold that the source of Rs. 1,86,330 was satisfactorily explained by the assessee as being cash-in-hand of Delhi Cement Co. and, therefore, this amount could not be treated as the income of the assessee. The addition of the same is, therefore, deleted.

15. We are now left with the other grounds in the assessee’s appeal

16. The assessee challenges the CIT(A)’s direction with regard to the addition of Rs. 38,791 on account of jewellery which, according to the assessee, belong to one Sikander Lal, who had pledged the same with the assessee as security for a loan of Rs. 26,000. The learned CIT(A) has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. He has observed that an affidavit of Sikander Lal was filed by the assessee, but neither the ITO summoned Sikander Lal nor the assessee produced him. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to record a finding that the jewellery belong to Sikander Lal. We are unable to accept this argument because Sikander Lal was not examined before the assessing officer. In the paper book the assessee has not placed the copy of the affidavit of Sikander Lal and we do not know what he stated therein and when did the assessee file the said affidavit before the assessing officer.

17. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that since in his earlier statement the assessee had admitted that the jewellery belong to him personally, the CIT(A) should have sustained the addition. In our view, this stand is also not correct, The assessee had retracted from his earlier statement and had made a fresh statement in support of which he relied on the-affidavit of Sikander Lal and the entry in the cash book of Delhi Cement Co. regarding the advance of Rs. 26,000 to the said Sikander Lal. In such circumstances the earlier statement could not be mechanically relied on for making the addition and it was necessary to find out which of the two statements of the assessee was correct. It is for this purpose that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. We may also mention that such a contention is not open to the revenue because it has neither challenged the CIT(A)’s direction in its appeal nor has it filed a cross objection against the assessee’s appeal on this point. For the above reasons the CIT(A)’ order on this point is upheld.

18. Grounds 3 and 4 in the assessee’s appeal relate to additions of Rs. 31,668 and Rs. 8,53,618 made on the basis of the slip found in the assessee’s shop. The contents of that slip have already been reproduced above in para 5 of this order: For making these additions the assessing officer observed as below :

"During the search operation a slip Annexure B-10 page 65 was found in the premises of the assessee on which transactions of Rs. 8,53,618 were noted. The assessee was asked to explain the same in his statement recorded on 27-2-1986. The assessee denied to have any knowledge of the slip. As the slip was found in the premises of the assessee it can very safely be presumed that it pertains to its business activities which are out of books of accounts. In this connection section 132(4A) is being quoted as under:-

"Where any books of accounts other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, other things is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search, it may be presumed :

(i) that such books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing belong or belongs to such person;

(ii) that the contents of such books of accounts and other documents are true. . . ."

The provision clearly shifts the onus on the assessee to prove the contents of the documents found during the search operation. As the assessee has been unable to discharge the same it is being presumed that the transactions pertained to the assessee. As the assessee is declaring 2.2% the same is being applied to the above mentioned amount of profit on the above transaction is being calculated at Rs. 21,340 and is being added to the income of the assessee. As the transactions are presumably out of books of accounts, the investment for the same also remains unexplained and the total amount of Rs. 8,53,618 is being added to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment.

19. The learned CIT(Appeals) has observed that there is a clear presumption under section 132(4A) that the document found belongs to the assessee and that its contents are true. He further observed that the assessee did not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption. He, therefore, upheld the addition of Rs. 8,53,618 and also enhanced the addition of Rs. 21,340 to Rs. 31,668 by including therein the other figure of Rs. 9,828 in the figure of Rs. 21,840.

20. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the document did not belong to the assessee and it was so stated by the assessee in his statement on oath recorded on 27-2-1986 before which the slip was never shown to the assessee. It was also contended that this document does not contain any narration in respect of the various figures noted therein and, therefore, it cannot be said that the total of the various figures at Rs. 8,53,618 is the income of the assessee in any manner whatsoever. It was also contended that the presumption permissible under section 132(4A) can be raised only for the purposes of proceedings under section 132 and not for the purposes of regular assessment. For this proposition reliance was sought to be placed on Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388¹ (All.). The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below by relying on the presumption permissible under section 132(4A).

21. We may first dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the presumption that is permissible under section 132(4A) cannot be raised in the proceedings for regular assessment. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case referred to above was concerned with a different situation. In that case, during the course of search certain account books were seized in which certain cash credits were recorded. In the assessment proceedings the assessee pleaded that by virtue of section 132(4A) the correctness of those credits, as recorded in the books of accounts, should be presumed. This contention was negatived by the Hon’ble High Court by holding that section 68 overrides section 132(4A) and it is in that connection that it was also observed that the presumption under section 132(4A) is limited only to the summary adjudication contemplated in sub-section (5) of section 132. These observations, in our view, are obiter as that was not the controversy before the Court. Section 132(4A) is a special provision dealing with documents and other things recovered during a search and its very purpose would be frustrated if the presumption is restricted to the interim proceedings under section 132(5). We, therefore, reject this contention of the assessee.

22. Section 132(4A) reads as under:

"(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed—

(i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or tiling belong or belongs to such person;

(ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and

(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested."

23. "Document" has’ been defined in section 3(18) of the General Clauses Act to include any matter written, expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters,. figures or marks or by more than one of those means, which is intended to be used or which may be used for the purposes of recording that matter. Taken in that light the slip in question is a document. In order to attract the presumption under section 132(4A) the first requirement is that the document should be found in possession or control of the assessee. In this case the revenue has been saying that the document was found inside the shop of the assessee. However, there is nothing in the orders of the authorities below to show that the slip was in possession and control of the assessee. Everything physically present inside the shop of a person may not be in that person’s control and possession. For proving possession it is necessary to show that the person concerned had the intentio possessendi. In this case nothing of that sort is pointed out by the authorities below. We also enquired from the learned Departmental Representative as to the exact place from where the slip was recovered and the learned Departmental Representative could not elighten us on that point.

24. Then for presuming that the contents of the books of account or document are true the document must be a speaking one. In this case the slip, said to have been recovered by the revenue, does not contain any narration in respect of the various figures noted therein. The slip does not indicate whether the figures referred to quantifies of money or to quantities of goods and whether one side, and if so, which side represents receipts and which side represents outgoings. This is, thus a dumb document and as the orders of the authorities below would show they have merely added the total of the right side of the slip without supplying the figures any language to indicate their meaning. In the case of such a dumb document, the provisions of section 132(4A) do not permit any one to presume that the total of the figures of right side of the slip represents the assessee’s income. The presumption at the most is attracted to the figures and a further presumption that they represent the income of the assessee is not permissible under section 132(4A). When a dumb document, like the present slip, is recovered and the revenue wants to make use of it, it is the duty of the revenue to collect necessary evidence which may provide an acceptable narration to the various entries. The evidence collected should be such that any reasonable man would accept the hypothesis advanced by the revenue that the figures written on the right side of the slip represent incomes earned by the assessee. It was conceded by the learned Departmental Representative that no such evidence has been brought on record.

25. The figures of Rs. 21,840 and Rs. 9,828 are amongst the various figures totalling to Rs. 8,53,618. Thus, the figure of Rs. 31,668 added by the CIT(Appeals) forms part of the total of Rs. 8,53,618 and the mechanical manner, in which the authorities below have approached, is indicated by the fact that the total of Rs. 8,53,618 has been added and in addition a part of this total representing two figures of Rs. 21,840 and Rs. 9,828 had also been added, thereby adding these figure’s twice. Further the Revenue has given no adjustment to the entries on the left side of the slip. We are, therefore, of the view that the slip in question did not indicate that the figures, referred to above, represent receipts of income to that extent by the assessee and it was not permissible to the revenue without procuring any evidence to support such a hypothesis that the entries record the income of the assessee and to presume such assumed narration of the entries to be true. In our view, therefore the additions of Rs. 31,668 and Rs. 8,53,618 cannot be sustained and they are hereby deleted.

26. The next ground raised in this appeal is about an addition of Rs. 2 lacs. The assessing officer has made this addition by observing as below .

"At the time of search and seizure three samples of Cement were taken from different godowns and sent to National Test House, Calcutta for chemical analysis. The result of the chemical analysis clearly shows that the three samples were absolutely different from each other in quality. In contradiction to the same the assessee has stated that it was purchasing cements about the quality of which nothing was known to him. It was stated that the cement was purchased from M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and from other reputed concerns and it was sold in the same form in packed bags. If the contention of the assessee is accepted true then in my opinion, there should not have been any such discrepancy in the chemical analysis. The stock inventory was also made in which shortage of 57 bags of cement was also noticed. In explanation to the same it was stated that the stock became wet in rain. It was also found at the time of search and seizure that entry on original bill No. 2492. dated 7-10-1983 was for Rs. 16,585 whereas on the copy of the same, entry of only Rs. 66.34 p. was found. These all facts indicate that there is some unexplained dealings with the stock sales and purchases which are out of books of accounts. An estimated amount of Rs. 2,00,000 is being added to the income of the assessee on account of the above mentioned trading discrepancies."

27. There is no dispute that samples of the cement were taken and the Nation A Test House, Calcutta reported varying results with respect to them. But the orders of the authorities below do not indicate what inference they derive from this fact. The certificate of the National Test House, copies of which have been placed in the departmental paper book, does not say that the samples in question were of adulterated cement. The assessing officer did not, seek any information from the manufacturers of the cement, with the result that none of the manufacturers is shown to have told the ITO that the cement supplied by them was of different chemical analysis. The authorities below had not even surmised that the assessee was selling adulterated cement. Therefore, the circumstance that the samples differed in chemical analysis does not lead us anywhere. As regards the shortage of 57 bags of cement the assessee’s explanation was that a portion of the cement had got spoiled in rain resulting in shortage of 57 bags. This explanation was advanced at the earliest stage in the assessee’s statement recorded on 21-10-1983 and has not been found to be false or unacceptable. The last circumstance is of Bill No. 24921 dated 7-10-1983, the original and counterfoil of which were seized during the search. It appears that at the time of search of the assessee’s business premises an employee of the Assessee, namely, Kailash Wadhwa was present. The carbon copy of cash memo No. 24921 shows the sale of one bag at a net price of Rs. 66.34 p. while the original of this bill show a sale of 250 bags of free sale cement for a total price of Rs. 16,585. In his statement recorded on 27-2-1986 the assessee was asked to explain this circumstance and he merely stated that the bill was only of one bag. He did not explain why the original cash memo bearing the same number was for Rs. 16,585. This was, thus, an adverse circumstance particularly because in the cash book, this sum of Rs. 16,585 has not been recorded. However, on the basis of this solitary instance a huge addition of Rs. 2 lacs could not be justified. In our view, the difference between Rs. 16,585 and Rs. 66.34, i.e., Rs. 16,518.56 rounded to Rs. 16,518 only deserves to be added to the assessee’s income and we order accordingly. The addition would, thus, stand reduced to Rs. 16,518.

28. The last ground in-the assessee’s appeal is about an addition of Rs. 3 lacs made by the assessing officer by observing as below:

"The search and seizure operation was conducted in the residential premises of Shri Hakumat Rai, father of the assessee on the same date. A slip Annexure-8, page 47 was seized from there. On the slip it was noted that Shri Ashwani Kumar had paid the amount of Rs. 3 lacs to some person who is having some connection with M/s. Dehradun Marble House. In his statement the assessee deposed that he did not know anything about it In this way the assessee has not been able to explain the above said amount and the same is being added to the income of the assessee."

As stated above, during a search at the residence of the assessee’s father, Shri Hakumat Rai, a slip was found. The orders of the authorities below show that the said slip or a copy thereof was not brought on the record of the present assessee and that is why the contents thereof have not been reproduced by the authorities below, nor has the learned Departmental Representative placed a copy of that slip in the paper book. The assessee has, however, placed before us a copy of the assessment order in the case of Dehradun Marble House, a partnership firm in which the said Hakumat Rai was a partner. In that assessment order the contents of that slip have been reproduced as below :

29. Shri Hakumat Rai was examined on 22-1-1985 in the course of his own assessment proceedings or that of Dehradun Marble House and a copy of that assessment has been placed by the learned Departmental Representative at pages 5 to 8 of the paper book. He was shown the aforesaid slip and he stated that the paper was not in his handwriting or in the handwriting of his sons, wife and daughters. He also stated that the entries are not related to his business and he cannot tell about the entries except that he took Rs. 1,00,000 from his son Ashu. As already stated the assessee in his statement recorded on 27-2-1986 has admitted that he is called Ashu also. In his statement dated 27-2-1986 the assessee was shown by the assessing officer a photocopy of the aforesaid slip and it was put to him that the slip showed that Hakumat Rai had received Rs. 1 lac from the assessee and Hakumat Rai had also paid Rs. 3 lacs to the assessee. The assessee replied that he does not know anything about this slip. Apart from this no material was brought to our notice in support of this addition of Rs. 3 lacs. As is evident, this addition is based on a slip recovered from the residence of Hakumat Rai and, therefore, no presumption under section 132(4A) could be raised against the assessee to the effect that the contents of the aforesaid slip were true. As far as Hakumat Rai’s statement that he had taken Rs. 1 lac from the assessee, that was a statement in his own assessment proceedings and Hakumat Rai was not examined in the assessment proceedings of the present assessee to make a statement to that effect and consequently the assessee was not required to explain the source of Rs. 1 lac for making alleged advance to Hakumat Rai. As a matter of fact the addition is not on account of non-explanation of the source from which the sum of Rs. 1 lac might have been advanced by the assessee to Hakumat Rai. The addition is for Rs. 3 lacs which sum, the slip states, was given to the assessee. Hakumat Rai has not made any statement to that effect. He disassociates himself from the slip. Similarly the assessee does not admit having taken or given any money to Hakumat Rai. As already stated no presumption under section 132(4A) could be raised in respect of this document against Ashwani Kumar and, therefore, as regards the present assessee there is no evidence to show that: (i) any sum of Rs. 3 lacs was paid to the assessee by Hakumat Rai or anybody else; (ii) that the sum of Rs. 3 lacs represented income; and (iii) the sum of Rs. 3 lacs represented income for the accounting period ending 30-9-1984 of the assessee. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 3 lacs mentioned in the aforesaid slip could not be treated as the assessee’s income and this addition, therefore, too was unjustified. We accordingly delete the same.

30. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.