R. Banumathi, C.J.––The assessee has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved with the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Tribunal in IT (SS)A No.65(Pat.) 2001.

2. Search and seizure operations were conducted on 27.10.1997 at the premises of the assessee under the provision of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20.11.1998 calling upon him to file his returns within a period of 45 days. The assessee filed the returns for the block period disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.6,51,321/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 158BC and had assessed the undisclosed income at Rs.40,75,868/-, vide assessment order dated 26.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal in part, vide order dated 15.10.2001. Not satisfied with the order of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee preferred second appeal to the Tribunal claiming that the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining an addition of Rs.3,76,600/- under the head of house rent; an addition of Rs.2,27,396/- under the head of educational expenses; an addition of Rs.2,91,000/- under the head of Misc. Payment to other persons and an addition of Rs.5,80,000/- under the head of other payment. Regarding undisclosed House Rent of Rs.3,76,600/-, the Tribunal granted further relief of Rs.1,20,000/- and sustained balance of Rs.2,56,600/- under the head undisclosed House Rent. The Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT (Appeals) on other heads.

3. Undisclosed House Rent

As per the lease agreement between the assessee and the landlord regarding the first-floor of the House rented by the assessee, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.6000/-, whereas from the seized document no.6, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had paid rent @ Rs.11,000/- per month for the period from November, 1993 to October, 1995 (24 months = Rs.2,64,000/-); @ Rs.17,000/- per month for the period from November, 1995 to March, 1996 (5 months = Rs.85,000/-) and @ Rs.20,400/- per month for the period from April, 1996 to October, 1997 (19 months = Rs.3,87,600/-), totaling Rs.7,36,600/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.6000/- per month for 48 months, i.e. Rs.2,88,000/-, the balance of Rs.4,48,600/- was calculated as undisclosed house rent. The Assessing Officer observed that the rented premises was in the heart of the city of New Delhi at Safdarjang Enclave and the rent is not likely to be Rs.6000/- per month and that to be it would not remain fixed for all the four years. On the basis of the document no.6 seized during the search, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,48,600/-.

4. CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that as per the lease agreement dated 17.4.1997, rent was payable @ Rs.11,000/- per month from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 for the first-floor and based on the document, the Assessing Officer should have allowed a further sum of Rs.72,000/-. CIT (Appeals) held that the total deduction allowable was not Rs.2,88,000/- but Rs.3,60,000/- and the total disallowable amount would come to Rs.3,76,600/- and granted relief of Rs.72,000/- to the assessee.

5. In appeal before the Tribunal, on perusal of the document no.6, it was noticed that the document no.6 nowhere contained an entry to the effect that the rent from November, 1993 to October, 1995 for the first-floor portion was paid at the rate of Rs.11,000/- p.m. Pointing out that the lower authorities were mis-directed concerning contents of the document and they reached the wrong conclusion, the Tribunal calculated disallowance under the head, “House Rent” at Rs.2,56,600/- as against Rs.3,76,600/- confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and thus, granted further relief of Rs.1,20,000/- to the assessee under this head.

6. Unexplained Educational Expense of Rs.2,27,398/-

On the basis of loose-sheets towards the educational expenses of the children of the asses