Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the Assessing Officer had not made the assessment solely on the basis of the statement recorded under section 132(4) but had also placed reliance on the material evidence seized during the course of search and at the time of assessment. After having found that the assessee had given different explanations at different stages, none of which was supported by any cogent material evidence to dislodge the presumption under section 132(4) and (4A) the Tribunal had rightly set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the assessment was made solely on the basis of the statement obtained under section 132(4) was contrary to the facts.  The Tribunal had found after recording the explanations, affidavit and other documents filed by the assessee that they were not acceptable as the belated retraction of the statement was in the form of a mere assertion and there was no material evidence furnished by the assessee to retract the statement made under section 132(4) and the affidavits of the assessee’s mother-in-law were unreliable as they were interested and self-serving testimonies. (AY. 1995-96)