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

....een shown as 1st Jan., 1938. As such the assessee had not attained the age 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 corr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Election Commission of India revealed that age of the assessee as on 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 submi....