Retracted disclosure and diary entries need corroboration, while telescoping credit applies when receipts and payments arise from the same transaction set.

Retraction of survey disclosure and uncorroborated diary entries could not support addition for the Vejalpur land transaction, because the registered sale, audited accounts and transaction chronology made the alleged later cash payment implausible and no reliable evidence established it. Diary entries for the Harsol transaction had to be read as a whole: where the same material recorded both receipts and payments from the undisclosed transaction set, telescoping credit was required so that the source and application of funds were not taxed twice. On that basis, the additions linked to both diary sets were deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made on the basis of the retracted survey disclosure and diary entries relating to the Vejalpur land transaction was sustainable. (ii) Whether the addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) out of the Harsol diary entries was justified, or whether telescoping and credit for amounts recorded as receipts in the same diary was required.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made on the basis of the retracted survey disclosure and diary entries relating to the Vejalpur land transaction was sustainable.

Analysis: The material showed that the land transaction had been concluded in 2008 through registered documents and audited accounts, while the impugned diary entries were sought to be linked to alleged cash payments in 2012. The diary was found to be prepared in circumstances supporting the assessee's case of coercion, and the revenue did not bring reliable corroboration to establish any cash payment in the year under appeal. The transaction chronology and surrounding evidence made the alleged post-sale cash payment implausible.

Conclusion: The addition relating to the Vejalpur land transaction was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) out of the Harsol diary entries was justified, or whether telescoping and credit for amounts recorded as receipts in the same diary was required.

Analysis: The diary contained both receipt and payment entries and was to be read as a whole. The assessee had accepted the unaccounted investment disclosed in the diary, and the same material also recorded amounts received. In such a situation, taxing both the source and the application of funds would amount to double taxation. The assessee was therefore entitled to telescoping credit for the receipts recorded in the diary, and the confirmation of part of the addition only on the ground of lack of confirmations was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The sustained addition out of the Harsol diary entries was deleted in full.

Final Conclusion: The order resulted in deletion of the impugned additions and the assessee succeeded on both contested issues, while the revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where diary entries record both receipts and payments arising from the same undisclosed transaction set, the material must be read as a whole and telescoping credit must be given to avoid taxing both source and application of funds; an addition based on retracted disclosure also requires reliable corroboration.

---