Tribunal held that ; Mere admission of amounts recorded in pen drive as additional unexplained income would not lead to drawing of adverse inference that unexplained investment was made by assessee for purchase of property, particularly when no evidence was produced to justify said payment by assesse . Ex-employee of Hiranandani in course of his cross-examination had clearly stated that neither he was aware of person who had made entry in pen drive, nor had with him any evidence that assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat.( AY. 2007 -08)