JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Ramesh Kumar Datta J.-Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent-Income-tax Department. appeal has been filed assailing order dated September 7, 2007, of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, by which appeal of assessee-appellant has been allowed in part but with regard to additions of two amounts of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh which assessee claimed to have been received from his mother and wife, respectively, order of Assessing Officer has been upheld. assessee is proprietor of M/s. H. K. Footwear which deals in footwear; during course of search and seizure under section 132 of Act held on November 27, 1996, certain facts came to light and notice under section 158BC of Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued for filing return for block period under consideration. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was also issued. During course of assessment proceedings assessee, inter alia, claimed to have received gifts of Rs. 1.50 lakhs from his mother, Laxmibala Ghosh, and Rs. 1 lakh from his wife, Smt. Bandana Ghosh. affidavits of wife and mother were also produced in which mother of assessee stated that she had received said amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs from her husband which was subsequently handed over to assessee and, similarly, wife claimed to have received amount of Rs. 1 lakh from her father while he was on his death bed and handed over same to assessee. Not satisfied with aforesaid affidavits same were treated as undisclosed income of assessee for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. On appeal to Tribunal, appeal has been rejected so far as said two amounts are concerned. Aggrieved by same appellant has come up before this court. Learned counsel for appellant relies upon section 69 of Incometax Act which is in following terms: "69. Unexplained investments.-Where in financial year immediately preceding assessment year assessee has made investments which are not recorded in books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and assessee offers no explanation about nature and source of investments or explanation offered by him is not, in opinion of Assessing Officer, satisfactory, value of investments may be deemed to be income of assessee of such financial year." It is submitted that appellant having offered explanation about nature and source of investments, burden, thereafter, shifted upon Assessing Officer and that burden has not been discharged by him. In support of aforesaid proposition, learned counsel relies upon decision of Division Bench of this court in case of Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Patna) in which it was held as follows (page 348): "In my view, law is too well-settled, and this I say not only on account of consensus of judicial opinion, but also for additional reason that, stretching doctrine of onus too far, in case of entries in favour of third parties, who themselves come forth and admit that they had advanced loans, addition of such amounts as from undisclosed sources or secreted profits in assessee's books of account, on rejection of such statements made by disinterested third parties, would lead to absurd inconvenience, which statute does not envisage. Decisions are numerous; to wit, Bench decision of this court in Radhakrishna Behari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 344 (Patna), Bench decision of Nagpur High Court in Jainarayan Balabakas of Khamgaon v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 271 (Nag), Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan Das Munnu Lal v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 452 (All) and Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 723 (Bom), may be referred to as authorities for proposition that, if credit entry stands in name of assessee himself, burden is undoubtedly on him to prove satisfactorily nature and source of that entry and to show that it does not constitute part of his income liable to tax. If credit entry stands in names of assessee's wife and children, or in name of any other near relation, or employee of assessee, burden lies on assessee, though entry is not in his own name, to explain satisfactorily nature and source of that entry. But, if entry stands not in name of any such person having close relation or connection with assessee, but in name of having close relation or connection with assessee, but in name of independent party, burden will still lie upon him to establish identity of that party and to satisfy Incometax Officer that entry is real and not fictitious. Once identity of third party is established before Income-tax Officer and other such evidence are prima facie placed before him pointing to fact that entry is not fictitious, initial burden lying on assessee can be said to have been duly discharged by him." Learned counsel has also relied upon decisions of apex court in case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) and in case of CIT v. P. V. Bhoopathy [2006] 283 ITR 365 (Mad). Learned counsel for respondent-Income-tax Department, on other hand, submits that burden of appellant is much higher in present proceeding arising out of search and seizure under section 132 of Act and sub-section (4A) thereof places heavy burden upon assessee. said sub- section is quoted below: "132. (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in possession or control of any person in course of search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in case of document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested." It is submitted that presumption raised by section 132(4A) has not at all been rebutted by appellant and appellant has totally failed in meeting onus laid upon him by section 69 of Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in present matter entries were in name of appellant himself and no corroborating documents could be produced by appellant to show when mother or wife of appellant had given said amounts except affidavits of such close relations. Thus, said heavy burden which lay on assessee as per decision of this court in Sarogi Credit Corporation's case (supra) has certainly not been discharged. From perusal of section 132 coupled with section 69 of Act, it is evident that it is for assessee to offer satisfactory explanation as to source of income with regard to any investments found to have been made by him and if explanation offered is not satisfactory then it is open to Assessing Officer to deem same to be income of assessee for such financial year. In Sarogi Credit Corporation's case (supra), this court had clearly held that if entry stands in name of assessee himself burden is undoubtedly on him to prove satisfactorily nature and source of that entry and to show that it does not constitute part of his income liable to tax and even if entries are in name of wife and children or any near relation or employee of assessee, burden would be upon assessee to explain satisfactorily nature and source of that entry. It is only when entry stands in name of third party who is independent person and not close relation or connected with assessee then burden upon assessee is only to establish identity of said third party and place such other evidence prima facie, before Assessing Officer that entry is not fictitious and then initial burden upon assessee would be treated to have been duly discharged and it would be upon Assessing Officer to show that investment is to be treated as unexplained one. In present matter, undoubtedly investment having been found to be in name of assessee and assessee alone, that too in course of search and seizure under section 132 of Act presumption can only be that they form part of unaccounted income of assessee and mere fact of producing affidavit by wife or mother of assessee may not be treated by Assessing Officer as sufficient explanation and neither Assessing Officer nor Tribunal has found same to establish genuineness of two transactions. said findings are purely findings of fact which is in domain of Assessing Officer and Tribunal and it cannot be said that findings are either based upon no material and are perverse. This court is of view that such findings are natural presumption to be drawn from nature of evidence that assessee had produced before Assessing Officer. Thus, this court does not find that any question of law much less substantial question of law arises from order of Tribunal. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. *** Hemant Kumar Ghosh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax