Dismissing the appeal of thee revenue Tribunal held that, partly allowing the of the assessee (i) that the assessee had made disclosure in his individual capacity and stated that the transaction between him and the alleged paper companies and payment of cash and making such investment were made by him in the FY 2009-10 relevant to the AY 2010-11, and therefore, the assessee had rightly included the amount in the return for the AY 2010-11, which was according to the statement made u/s. 132(4). The AO should have considered the statement made by the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act. The basis for the addition was merely the statement of the assessee and nothing else. The mere investment in the share capital made in the AY 2009-10, ipso facto did not suggest that the assessee had income in that year, in the absence of any concrete material evidence to prove accordingly. Moreover, the amount having suffered tax in the AY 2010-2011 the AO had not given credit therefor, while assessing the amount in the AY 2009-10, which amounted to double taxation. The deletion of the addition for the AY 2009-10 called for no interference. (AY 2009-10,   2010-11)