This is appeal by assessee pertaining to assessment year 1978- 79. 2. assessee disclosed fact that she had one-sixth share in house property No. 11, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi, which was sold to President of United Arab Republic of Egypt through their Embassy in New Delhi. entire consideration for house was Rs. 13,44,926 as per sale deed, dated 6-4-1977. assessee's share in said sale proceeds was Rs. 2,24,155. She invested out of said sum of Rs. 2,22,500 in purchase of house bearing No. 78-D, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, which was purchased vide sale deed registered with Sub-Registrar, Delhi, on 1-4-1978. purchase of new house was jointly with Shamji Memorial Trust for total consideration of Rs. 4,45,000, in which assessee's share was Rs. 2,65,176. 3. ITO, during course of assessment proceedings, found that there w s long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,43,089. Consequently, he required assessee to show cause as to why capital gain may not be added. Before ITO, inter alia, it was contended that more than 60 per cent of entire covered area was exclusively used for self-residence and only part of building was let out. Thus, assessee contended that transfer of her house which, in two years immediately preceding year of transfer was being used by herself mainly for purpose of her residence and assessee had within period of one year before or after that date purchased house property for purpose of her own residence. Thus, it was contended that there was no capital gain on sale of property. 4. learned ITO was not satisfied with said contention. According to him building was not mainly used for purpose of residence of assessee. Consequently, he imposed long-term capital gain at Rs. 1,43,089. learned AAC agreed with said finding. 5. Before Tribunal, on behalf of assessee, it was contended that finding of learned AAC is not correct. Inter alia, it was contended that covered area as well as uncovered area in full use and occupation of assessee was more than 60 per cent of entire area and it was used exclusively for her residence. assessee filed affidavit of herself before ITO. In said affidavit it was clearly stated that out of total covered area of 11,915 sq. ft. assessee has been in actual occupation of covered area of 7,322 sq. ft. It was also stated that area which was in exclusive use of assessee was more than 60 per cent. ITO did not cross-examine assessee on said affidavit. assessee also filed certificate of architect, copy of which is in paper book. According to said certificate also more than 60 per cent of house has been in actual use and occupation of assessee and her family members. authorities below did not bring on record any evidence to show that more than 60 per cent of entire house was not exclusively used by assessee for her residence ITO on basis of past record came to conclusion that house was not mainly used by assessee for her self-occupation. Thus, it was contended that evidence produced by assessee remained uncontroverted. Reliance was also placed on ratio of decisions in case of CIT v. C. Jayalakshmi [1981] 132 ITR 82 (Mad.) and Addl. CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 (Delhi). 6. learned departmental representative supports order of Commissioner (Appeals). According to him on behalf of assessee no convincing material was produced to show that house was mainly used for her self-residence. It was also contended that portion of house was let out to tenant. Under circumstances, it is not correct to say that house was mainly used for residence of assessee. Reliance was also placed on ratio of decision in case of Smt. Shantaben P. Gandhi v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 218 (Guj.). 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused entire material on record. Before discussing contentions of parties and decisions relied on by them it would be necessary to consider facts of case. Stand of assessee has been that building was mainly used by her for her self-residence. According to assessee total covered area of house was 12,465 sq. ft. consisting of following: Sq. ft. Ground floor 4,255 First floor 3,944 Barsati 713 Annexe 3,553 Out of above, covered area of 4,657 sq. ft. in respect of first floor and barsati floor was let out. remaining covered area of 7,808 sq. ft. representing ground floor, annexe and lawns which were about 62.6 per cent of entire area was used for assessee's self-residence. In respect of this contention assessee filed detailed objection supported with certificate of architect. copy of same is in paper book. Affidavit of assessee was also filed which is on page 18 of paper book. In said affidavit all details of house in question were given. In said affidavit it was clearly stated that accommodation to extent of 7,322 sq. ft. was being used by her for self-residence. ITO never cross-examined deponent on said affidavit. He also did not collect any other material to show that evidence produced by assessee was not correct. ITO rejected affidavit of assessee on ground that it was self-surviving statement. ITO was not justified in rejecting affidavit and other material in such manner. affidavit filed by assessee is also supported by report of architect. In decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, Supreme Court ruled that if persons who gave affidavits were not cross-examined, it was not open to revenue to challenge correctness of statement made in affidavit. It is not case of revenue that affidavit filed by assessee is vague or like. Looking to aforesaid facts and evidence on record it i s established that more than 60 per cent of entire house has been in self-occupation of assessee. 8. We may point out that ITO on basis of past records was of view that assessee was not occupying building mainly for her residence purposes. In present case here assessee produced sufficient evidence, is discussed above. It was duty of ITO to examine issue in light of t h e evidence produced by assessee. Thus, ITO has gone wrong in deciding issue on basis of past records of assessee. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion it is proved that out of whole accommodation area to extent of 7,322 sq. ft. has been in exclusive use and occupation of assessee for her residence purposes. Less than 50 per cent of accommodation was let out to tenant. 10. On facts, discussed above, it is to be seen whether house was mainly used by assessee for her self-residence. word 'mainly' occurs in section 54, viz., "which in two years immediately preceding date on which transfer took place, was being used by assessee or parent of his mainly for purposes of his own or parent's own residence". In present case, only dispute is whether residence before transfer was mainly used by assessee for her own residence or not. word 'mainly' is simple English word not capable of giving rise to any difficulty in understanding it in context in which it occurs. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, meaning of word 'mainly' is for most part chiefly, principally. According to Universal English Dictionary edited by Henry Cecil Wyld, meaning of word 'mainly' is chiefly, to greatest extent, in main, for most part. Consequently, it is clear that property sold should have been put to use principally as residence for two years immediately preceding date of transfer. In case of C. Jayalakshmi, Hon'ble Madras High Court ruled that benefit of section 54 is not lost merely because owner happened to let out small portion in building for rent. 11. decision relied on by revenue in case of Smt. Shantaben P. Gandhi, is on different facts. In that case assessee's property was divided into two parts, one of which was larger than other. building was constructed on larger portion which was partly occupied by assessee. assessee constructed house on smaller plot and construction was completed in March 1968. larger plot with superstructure thereon was sold and conveyance was executed in March 1970. assessee claimed exemption from capital gains arising on sale under section 54 on ground that house on smaller plot had been constructed for purposes of her residence. Tribunal held that assessee was not entitled to exemption. Hon'ble High Court agreed with said finding. That decision was given on facts of that case. So this decision is of no help to department. 12. Looking to aforesaid facts and entire evidence on record we are of view that assessee's house in question was mainly used by assessee for her self-residence for two years immediately preceding date of transfer. So in view of section 54 there is no capital gain on sale of property. finding of Commissioner (Appeals), to contrary, is not correct. addition in question is uncalled for and same is deleted. 13. In view of aforesaid decision other grounds of appeal become infructuous. 14. In result, appeal is allowed. *** SMT. SAVITRI DEVI MAINI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER