once the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and proof of repayment within the same year, reliance by AO/CIT(A) solely on the statement of an entry operator was unsustainable—particularly when the statement was retracted and cross examination was denied.

📂 Facts
• Assessee received unsecured loans of ₹50 lakh from five companies.
• Loans supported by confirmations, PAN, ITRs, and bank statements; repayment claimed within the same year.
• AO treated loans as accommodation entries based on statement of entry operator Shri Vipul Bhatt recorded u/s 132(4).
• Additions: ₹50 lakh u/s 68 (cash credits) and ₹50,000 u/s 69C (unexplained expenditure).
• CIT(A) upheld additions citing non appearance of creditors and reliance on Bhatt’s statement.

❓ Issue
Whether additions u/s 68 and 69C were sustainable when assessee furnished documentary evidence and Revenue relied solely on a retracted third party statement without permitting cross examination.

📝 Tribunal’s Findings
• ✅ Assessee discharged onus under s.68 by proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors.
• 🚫 Reliance on retracted statement of Shri Vipul Bhatt without affording cross examination violated principles of natural justice (Andaman Timber Industries, SC).
• 📌 CIT(A)’s own observation that “prima facie everything is in four corners of law” supported assessee’s case.
• ❌ Consequential addition u/s 69C also unsustainable.