Held that  when there is no incriminating material, the addition with regard to credit card payments was unsustainable. Tribunal also held that    in the case of the other assessee, the addition was made under section 153A of the Act on the basis of documents found in a separate search on the other individual. Hence, the plea of the assessee that the assessment should have been made under section 153C of the Act and not under section 153A was quite correct. Material found at the premises of the other individual was taken as if it was material found during search of the assessee which was not at all correct. Hence, the very basis of the addition was missing. The assessment was made under section 153A and not under section 153C of the Act, which was a fatal error which was not curable. The presumption under section 132(4A) could not be extended to material found at somebody else’s place. Without corroborating documents, these could not be linked to the assessee. The assessee’s name was nowhere directly mentioned in these documents found at the other individual’s place whereas it was mentioned as Dildar (Atul sir) which ipso facto could not mean the assessee. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the additions was deleted.(AY.2011-12, 2014-15 to 2016-17)