Unexplained cash additions under Section 69A must be restricted to the actual amount seized.

On March 7, 2017, police in Shahjahanpur intercepted a bus and seized cash amounting to ₹68,47,000 and "brown sugar" from four individuals. The individuals claimed the cash belonged to the Appellant.

The Appellant contended that he had pooled ₹80,42,100 from 17 lenders (family and friends) and a gold loan from Muthoot Finance to purchase property in Lucknow, but the deal failed.

The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this explanation, noting that the lenders withdrew cash in small amounts over several months rather than using banking channels.

The AO made an addition of ₹80,42,100 as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Revenue to treat unexplained money as the assessee's income.

It also applied Section 260A regarding the High Court’s jurisdiction over substantial questions of law, noting that a finding of fact becomes a legal question if it is perverse or ignores relevant evidence.

The Court relied on the precedent of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT (2011) to establish that findings based on "no evidence" or which ignore admissible evidence warrant judicial interference.

Furthermore, it applied the principle of "initial onus," where the assessee must provide a plausible explanation before the burden shifts to the Department to conduct further inquiries.

The Court found the Appellant’s explanation regarding the pooling of resources from 17 lenders to be commercially implausible.

Since both the lenders and the Appellant possessed bank accounts, the piecemeal cash withdrawals over a ten-month period for a property deal that was not yet finalized did not align with ordinary human conduct.

Consequently, the AO was not required to summon witnesses under Section 131 as the "initial onus" was never discharged.

However, the Court identified a perversity in the quantum of the addition. The AO had rejected the Appellant’s story of collecting ₹80,42,100 as a "cooked up" explanation.

The Court reasoned that the Revenue cannot reject an assessee's explanation as false while simultaneously using figures from that same rejected explanation to increase the tax liability beyond the actual seized amount.

On the second issue, it held that the Revenue was not obligated to verify the lenders' affidavits as the explanation was inherently unsatisfactory.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. The final addition was reduced from ₹80,42,100 to ₹68,47,000.