A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing at the residential and business premises of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a reply stating that Rs. 2,01,00,000 was received as advance against property. No further details giving the name and address of the person from whom this money was received were provided. The mode of payment was also not mentioned. The AO finalized the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 2 crores in the hands of the assessee. On appeal the first appellate authority upheld the addition made by AO.  The assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) preferred further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was a specific information received by the CBI and conversation of all the persons had been recorded by the CBI. Nothing had been explained with regard to the allegations made against the assessee and others in the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI. There was a substantial gap between withdrawal of cash and payment to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee had failed to explain the source of the cash of Rs. 2 crores found from his possession during the course of search by the CBI. The entire case set up by the assessee was clearly an afterthought. The memorandum of understanding and receipt were sham documents and fabricated by the assessee and others later on which fact was further strengthened by the fact that no original memorandum of understanding and receipt had been produced before the authorities. Thus, the assessee had no explanation whatsoever of the cash found from his possession during the course of search by the CBI. If the test of human probability was applied it was clearly established that the assessee had failed to prove the source of Rs. 2 crores found during the course of search by the CBI at his residence. The addition was sustained. (AY. 2011-12)