This is assessee s second appeal challenging addition of Rs. 35,000 as income from undisclosed sources in assessment for asst. yr. 1976-77. We have heard ld. counsel for assessee and ld. Departmental Representative. assessee had constructed building in which be claimed to have invested Rs. 55,000 in year 1974-75. accounting period for asst. yr. 1976-77 was year ending 30th June, 1975. ITO estimated cost of investment in building at Rs. 60,000. assessee had explained that amount came form his past savings and loan of Rs. 5,000 from Central Bank of India. ITO held that assessee s savings could be of order of Rs. 10,000. He, therefore, held that investment to extent of Rs. 45,000 was not explained and added it to assessee s income under s. 69 of IT Act. On appeal to AAC cost of construction was taken at Rs. 55,000 it self as disclosed by assessee. learned AAC increased extent of savings to Rs. 15,000 and reduced addition to Rs. 35,000. Still feeling aggrieved assessee has come to this Tribunal. In ground of appeal initially set-up assessee had merely attached finding as regards assessee s savings. At time of hearing, however, assessee set-up another plea that in time of s. 69 investment had to be considered with respect of respective financial year and, therefore, of there was any unexplained investment that should have been distributed in 1974-75 and 1975-76. We had permitted assessee to set-up this additional ground. We would first take this additional ground set-up by assessee. unexplained investment has been taxed under s. 69 of IT Act. This section reads as under: "69. Where in financial year immediately proceedings assessment year assessee has made investments which are not recorded in books of account, if any maintained by him for any source of income, and assessee offers no explanation about nature and source of investments or explanation offered by him is not, in opinion of ITO, satisfactory value of investments may be deemed to be income of assessee of such financial year." above provisions would show that for purpose of unexplained investment previous year is financial year and not accounting year of assessee. assessee had claimed to have invested Rs. 54,000 in 1974- 75. In letter, addressed to ITO, copy of which had been placed at p. 9 of paper-book, assessee stated that he had been following accounting year from 1st July to 30th June each year. This was followed by statement that assessee had built up hotel (the building in question) in year 1974-75 costing about Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 55,000. This means that according to assessee investment was made in accounting period 1st July, 1974 to 30th June, 1975. This is what was stated by ld. counsel for assessee also before us at time of hearing. Since for s. 69 investment made in particular financial year is only relevant made during period 1st April, 1976 to 30th June, 1976 could be taxed. ld. Departmental Representative could not contriver this position of law. There is nothing on record to show that any amount was actually invested in this period of 3 months. In absence of such finding no amount could be taxed under s. 69 in asst. yr. 1976-77 and addition made by ITO and upheld by AAC will have to be deleted. As regards extent of savings of assessee, his contention was that h e was leading very simple life and living in small village and hand been running small hotel for last 20-25 years. He had also contended that he was member of HUF which owned agricultural land measuring about 300 acres and he was receiving Rs. 1,600 every year for past fifty years. In addition, he stated that his elder brother was also living with him jointly and said brother was himself having business and they had ancestral hose and did not have to pay any rent. He is old man in evening of his life and could not save about Rs. 50,000. In our view, therefore, his plea that amount came from his past savings was quite probable and could be accepted. In view of above discussion, we, feel that this appeal deserves to be allowed. appeal is allowed and addition of Rs. 45,000 made by ITO is deleted in toto. *** BHAGWATSINGH YADAV v. INCOME TAX OFFICER