AO made addition towards purported on-money in the hands of the assessee on the ground that there is a close proximity between date of sale of property on 23rd Dec., 2015 and reference of cash payment in the seized cash book on 31st Dec., 2015. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that cash book in excel sheet seized  did not contain any reference to the name of the assessee or concerned property. No further incriminating material was found during the course of search in the case of the assessee or in the case of search of Poiisetty Somasundararn  with regard to alleged payment of on-money. Moreover, the date of transfer of property was 23rd Dec., 2015, whereas the alleged cash payment was purportedly made on 31st Dec., 2015. No prudent person will transfer the property and receive cash on subsequent date. There is no admission of on-money payment in the statement recorded under S. 132(4) either in the case of Poiisetty Somasundararn   or in the case of the assessee. Yellluri Chandrasekar Rao  Authorized Representative of Poiisetty Somasundararn  has denied payment of on-money. He further stated that cash was sent to Bangalore for the purpose of purchase of tobacco and that the said cash is not connected in any way to the immovable property transactions with the assessee.  The managing partner of the assessee-firm had also denied receiving any on-money in cash from Poiisetty Somasundararn.  The provisions of S. 132(4A) and 292C cannot applied  in the case of the assessee. Tribunal held that merely on the basis of suspicion and surmise addition cannot be made,  relied on CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC).   The order of the  CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed. (AY. 2016-17)