Addition for unexplained investment could not stand where it...

Addition for unexplained investment could not stand where it rested only on third-party statements and seized material from another group entity, without any independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to payment of on-money. The Tribunal also noted that denial of cross-examination when such third-party statements are relied upon vitiates the addition in natural justice terms. Following co-ordinate Bench decisions on identical facts involving the same group, it deleted the addition under section 69 and allowed the assessee's appeals for the relevant years.

---