The assessee was engaged in the business of marble mining and selling.  A search and seizure action under S. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential premises of its partner including other group concerns of the assessee.  During the search action, A in his statement recorded under S. 132(4) admitted taking accommodation entries in the form of long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unsecured loans received by the assessee from the three parties aggregating to RS. 76,65,206 under S. 68.  The CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that during the search A made disclosure of income in the form of long-term capital gains in his individual capacity and there was no clinching evidence for routing the unaccounted income through unsecured loan during the search, and it was not legally tenable to make addition in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.  The addition having been made on the basis of third-party information, the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the merits. On appeal held, that the Assessing Officer had not brought out any defect or discrepancy in the evidence brought on record by the assessee.  Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year was without jurisdiction.  Thus, the assessment order was invalid, consequent upon which the entire addition made therein were deleted.  (AY. 2010-11,  2014-15 to 2016-17).