S. K. JAIN, J.M.: Order This Departmental appeal is against order of AAC, arising out of assessment order for 1980-81. 2. Two issues are involved in this appeal: First is regarding assessment of profit under s. 41(2) of IT Act, 1961. Truck was purchased by assessee in 1973 for Rs. 11,000 and was sold at same price on date falling in instant assessment year. ITO computed written down value of truck at Rs. 5,490 and, as such, assessed profits under s. 41(2) at Rs. 5,881. Stand of assessee in appeal before AAC was that depreciation was actually allowed only in asst. yr. 1979-80 to extent of Rs. 2,310 and, therefore, only that much should have been reduced from purchase price of trucks for finding out written down value of truck on date of sale. According to assessee, in earlier years depreciation was not actually allowed. 3 . We heard ld. Representatives of parties on this point. We have perused assessment order for years 1978-79 and 1979-80. It is claimed that in asst. yr. 1978-79, no depreciation of said truck was actually allowed. Depredation of sum of Rs. 2,310 was actually allowed in asst. yr. 1979-80, therefore, as to earlier year only that much should have been reduced from purchase price of truck. Further, we find that in instant year ITO allowed Rs. 161 as depreciation on said truck. Thus, profit under s. 41(2) of Act should be Rs. 2,471. Order of AAC, is therefore, modified to extent that profit under s. 41(2) shall be taken at Rs. 2,471 instead of Rs. 2,310. 4 . second issue is regarding investment made by assessee in purchasing new truck during period relevant to assessment year under appeal. assessee made deposits of following amounts in bank and withdrew said deposits for making investment in purchasing new truck: Date . Amount 11-4-1979 . Rs. 5,000.00 26-4-1979 . Rs. 3,000.00 15-5-1979 . Rs. 3,000.00 21-6-1979 . Rs. 13,500.00 2-7-1979 . Rs. 10,000.00 11-8-1979 . Rs. 9,000.00 . Total : Rs. 43,500.00 5. Explanation of assessee as to these deposits was that they were out of her past savings. This did not satisfy ITO. However, he made allowance of Rs. 10,000 and added balance of Rs. 35,000 (should be Rs. 33,500) to income of assessee as form undisclosed sources. AAC accepted explanation of assessee as to source of those deposits. He, therefore, deleted addition. 6. After hearing ld. Representatives of parties we find that order of AAC does not require interference. At outset, it does appear odd as to how only within span of five months past savings of assessee to extent of Rs. 43,500 came out and were deposited in bank, particularly at juncture when new truck was purchased and obviously investment therefor was needed. Suspicion as to investment from unexplained source is no doubt aroused but no decision can be passed on mere suspicion. There is no presumption in favour of illegality. One has to look at affairs in right perspective. It is quite natural that amount, if really, was kept with lady, would come at appropriate time. It was proper time when new truck was purchased for earning income and money was required for investment therein. Saving habit on Indian ladies is well known fact and, therefore, it cannot be lightly said that assessee could not have had so much amount out of her past savings when she had already income in past from plying of truck. She was being assessed since asst. yr. 1974-75 and in beginning of that assessment she had some capital. Her husband has separate income from which household expenditure was net with. entire income of assessee, therefore, was saving. In this view of matter, we endorse finding of AAC. source of deposit in bank was satisfactorily explained by assessee. 7. In result, appeal is partly allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI GOYAL