Held that since the two agreements relating to the same property mentioning different amounts of sale consideration found during the course of search at the assessee’s premises pertain to two separate transactions between different parties, no addition is sustainable, more so as the assessee has retracted from his statement recorded under s. 132(4), and there is no material to show that the assessee or his wife has paid any undisclosed amount to the seller of the property. Addition was made solely on the basis of assessee’s retracted statement recorded during the search, and no incriminating material was found to support the unaccounted investment in house construction addition was deleted. The assessee had already disclosed rental income higher than the amount recorded in the seized document; the addition based on such document was unwarranted. (AY.2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2016-17)