Evidence from survey and Section 133A lacks independent corroboration and cannot sustain unexplained investment additions; deletion followed.

Whether an addition under the law for unexplained investment can rest solely on documents seized during a survey and a statement recorded under the statutory information-gathering provision was analysed: the principles applied require independent corroboration of statements under the information provision and that survey entries lacking key particulars or showing internal discrepancies cannot alone sustain an addition. The assessing officer's failure to conduct independent enquiries, verify summoned parties, or produce corroborative material meant the documentary matrix did not support the unexplained-investment addition, with the operative effect being deletion of the addition in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 33,00,000 made under Section 69 as unexplained investment, based solely on documents and statements found during survey and a statement recorded under Section 133A without further independent enquiry or opportunity for cross-examination, is sustainable.

Analysis: The addition rested on entries and a statement recorded during survey and on a statement of the builder's accountant under Section 133A. The assessee denied payment, produced bank statements and an affidavit asserting no cash on-money payments, and sought summons/cross-examination. The assessing officer did not conduct independent enquiries or produce corroborative material and proceeded to make the addition because the summoned parties did not appear. Coordinate-bench precedents dealing with survey/seizure material and pen-drive entries were applied, holding that statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value unless corroborated and that entries found during survey that omit key particulars (mode, date, payer, payee) and contain internal discrepancies cannot alone sustain an addition. The tribunal followed these principles and found the factual matrix and documentary record in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 33,00,000 under Section 69 is deleted; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

---