2005 (11) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of 65 years as on 31st March, 2002 and was not eligible for rebate of Rs. 15,000 under s. 88B of IT Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed a certificate issued by the S.M.O, Khanna, justifying that the assessee's age was about 70 years and as such she was entitled to rebate as per provisions of s. 88B. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee by stating that in the certificate furnished, specific date of birth had not been mentioned and it is only stated that the assessee appeared to be 70 years of age. According to the AO, the date of birth mentioned in the return of income and also in the PAN card is to be considered as correct date of birth of the assessee and no cognizance be given to the certi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1st Jan., 1994 was 59 years, as such for asst. yr. 2002-03 the assessee was senior citizen and was eligible to claim rebate under s. 88B of IT Act. He further submitted that due to oversight, the date was mentioned wrongly in the application furnished for issuing of PAN card and the same date had been mentioned in the return of income but actual date of birth of the assessee was 1st Jan., 1935 and for that purpose, affidavit had also been furnished, the contents of which had not been rebutted. 7. In his rival submissions, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and also gone through the material available on record. In the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had been passed on 25th Sept., 2003 and the dates of hearing were 25th July, 2003 and 25th Aug., 2003, so, it can be presumed that the certificate mentioning the date (age) about 70 years was issued in the year 2003. If these documents are to be considered i.e., the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, the affidavit of the assessee, the contents of which had not been rebutted, the certificate of SMO, Khanna, which had not been disbelieved, the age of the assessee as on 31st March, 2002 was more than 65 years. Therefore, she was entitled to the rebate under s. 88B of IT Act. I may mention here that although the evidence in the shape of PAN card was against the assessee but the preponderance of probabilities lies in favo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X