Unverified ledger entries cannot sustain a section 68 addition; jurisdictional challenge under section 153C also failed.

Proceedings under section 153C were not shown to suffer from any jurisdictional defect, because the forwarded information and recorded procedure did not establish non-compliance with the requisite satisfaction requirement, so the assessee's challenge failed. An addition under section 68 based only on an unverified ledger page could not be sustained, because the persons named were not identified, no inquiry was made from the searched concern, no statement linked the assessee to the alleged cash payment, and the entries did not match the assessee's project; the deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings initiated under section 153C were without jurisdiction for want of the requisite satisfaction and compliance with the prescribed procedure; (ii) Whether the addition of Rs. 74,00,000 made under section 68 could be sustained on the basis of an unverified ledger entry without corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings initiated under section 153C were without jurisdiction for want of the requisite satisfaction and compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The record showed that the information received from the searched party was forwarded for initiating proceedings under section 153C and the appellate authority had already examined the procedure followed. No material was brought to show that the jurisdictional requirement was not met.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the proceedings under section 153C failed and was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 74,00,000 made under section 68 could be sustained on the basis of an unverified ledger entry without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The only material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was a ledger page containing cash entries, but the identity of the persons mentioned therein was not verified, no inquiry was made from the searched concern, no statement linked the assessee to the alleged cash payment, and the entries did not match the project purchased by the assessee. The material was not corroborated by independent evidence and, by itself, was insufficient to fasten liability.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition under section 68 was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal and cross objection were both dismissed, with the assessment of the disputed cash addition remaining deleted and the jurisdictional challenge under section 153C not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Uncorroborated entries in loose or ledger materials cannot, by themselves, justify an addition unless their authenticity is independently verified and the assessee's connection with the alleged transaction is established.

---