Held that  the document found on the computer during the course of search proceedings mentioned in relation to payment of Rs. 20 lakhs for purchases. However, the Department had not identified the purpose of payment, the date of making such payment, by whom such payment was authorised and the identity of person to whom such payment was purportedly made. There was no evidence placed on record to corroborate the loose document and to prove that payment of Rs. 20 lakhs was actually made. The document relied upon by the Department was not even a part of the regular books of account but merely a loose document which did not even have a date. Although being a computer document there was no question of any signature or handwriting, it needed to be corroborated. There was no material on record to show that payment of Rs. 20 lakhs was actually made to a person named “N” as mentioned by V in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which he subsequently retracted.  Addition is deleted.  Relied, CBI v. V. C. Shukla [1998 3 SCC 410 ; [1998 AIR 1998 SC 1406, Common Cause (a Registered Society) v. UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 and CIT v. Lavanya Land P. Ltd (2017) 397 ITR 246 (Bom)(HC).  (AY. 2015-16 to 2018-19)