Held that the assessee’s explanation for the money collected in cash supposedly for safekeeping before it was returned and for the payment of interest without deduction of tax at source, being unverifiable, unsupported by any tangible evidence or proper explanation, could not be accepted. The payment of interest, sans deduction of tax at source, payment of project advance, as well as accrual of interest were not recorded in the assessee’s books of account. The addition made as unexplained money under section 69A or 69C on the loan taken from D and N, other loans and expenses noted in the director’s diary, cash payments made to K and Z, and receipts by way of interest from M, declared as labour income, were also not explained. The assessee had not come out with all the details explaining the transactions in different years. In the absence of any contradictory material, the stand of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the additions were confirmed. the additions were made based on transactions recorded from materials impounded during the survey and that on considering the nature of additions, it was a case fit for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) , required no interference.  (AY. 2007-08, 2008-09)