Held that  with respect to the addition on account of capital gains the Assessing Officer had not brought anything on record to show that the transaction actually happened for the amount as mentioned in the entry nor recorded any adverse finding with regard to the transaction during the course of survey conducted under section 133A. The Assessing Officer did not establish the nexus that the entry found during the course of search with the assessee and how the amount mentioned therein as received by T was indeed received on behalf of the assessee and not someone else. The assessee was not given proper opportunity to confront the allegations as the Assessing Officer did not furnish the actual details of material seized. The assessee had substantiated by producing the sale deed which was registered much before the date of the entry found during the course of search that the actual transaction happened for an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs only, which according to the registered sale deed had already been paid to the assessee. Given this, the burden was on the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee received some additional “on-money” payments and the Assessing Officer had not brought sufficient material on record against the assessee warranting the addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given a clear finding while deleting the additions and there was no reason to interfere with his order on this issue. (AY. 2008-09)