JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-The assessee is appellant. It is case of block assessment. These appeals are filed challenging order of Incometax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Chennai, dated August 25, 2006, made in I. T. (S. S.) A. Nos. 154/Mds/2004 and 4/Mds/2005 for block assessment year 1989-90 to 1999-2000. T. C. (A.) No. 1244 of 2007 was admitted on following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in rejecting claim for availability of opening cash balance merely based on surmise sans any material? (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in assessing gifts received from friends as casual and non- recurring income? T. C. (A.) No. 1245 of 2007 was admitted on following substantial question of law: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in holding that in block assessment under section 158BC of Income-tax Act irrecoverable advances made in course of money-lending business cannot be allowed as deduction in computing assessable income?" 4.1. facts in nut-shell are as under: search was conducted under section 132 of Income-tax Act (for brevity, "the Act") on September 24, 1998, and certain incriminating documents were seized and heavy investments were noticed. Based on materials, notice under section 158BC of Act was issued and in response to same, assessee filed return of income. 4.2. rival claims of assessee and Department and findings rendered by original authority, first appellate authority and Tribunal on each of issues raised is as under: Opening cash balance - (C. M. A. No. 1244 of 2007) 4.3.1. assessee claimed Rs. 5,00,000 as opening balance for assessment year 1989-90 in cash flow statement filed along with return of income and stated that he received cash as gift from friends and relatives as under: (i) on occasion of his daughter's ear-boring ceremony, which was held on April 14, 1979, he received Rs. 2,60,000; and (ii) on occasion of his son's ear-boring ceremony, which was held on May 13, 1985, he received Rs. 1,90,000; said amount was received by assessee in common parlance as moi. That apart, assessee claimed that sum of Rs. 50,000 given by his wife out of her savings. 4.3.2. Assessing Officer disbelieved same and held that functions were held in years 1979 and 1985 and assessee could not hold money received as moi for such long period, namely, till April 1, 1988, in its entirety. Thereafter, based on direction given by Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was taken as opening balance and balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was treated as undisclosed income. 4.3.3. Aggrieved by same, assessee went on appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who gave further relief of Rs. 50,000 and treated opening balance as Rs. 3,00,000, thereby restricting undisclosed income to Rs. 2,00,000. 4.3.4. Not being satisfied with said order, assessee preferred appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal confirmed order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that he has taken liberal view and same warrants no interference. Remodelling of house at No. 15-B, Gokalay Road - (C. M. A. No. 1244 of 2007) 4.4.1. In course of search proceedings, it was found that assessee claimed that house was remodelled at cost of Rs. 3,50,000. But, as per seized material, Department estimated value at Rs. 7,00,000. assessee explained that value of timber, asbestos and other construction materials is not Rs. 3,50,000, but only Rs. 90,000, and same was received by assessee on account of certain arbitration task undertaken by him in dispute between family friends and, hence, it is capital receipt and not undisclosed income. 4.4.2. Assessing Officer held that assessee could not give proof for same and as per direction of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, cost of remodelling was taken as Rs. 4,40,000 and sum of Rs. 90,000 was treated as undisclosed income, stating that it cannot be treated as capital receipt. 4.4.3. Aggrieved by same, assessee went on appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that amount received by assessee as honorarium from friends and family on resolution of disputes could be termed as casual and non-recurring type. Thus, he deducted sum of Rs. 5,000 under section 10(3) of Act and balance amount of Rs. 85,000 was brought to tax. 4.4.4. assessee appealed to Tribunal, which confirmed order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Bad debts - (C. M. A. No. 1245 of 2007) 4.5.1. In course of search, it was found that there were certain entries showing that assessee had given sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to one Pothiraj and it was stated by assessee that he could not recover said amount despite lodging of complaint with police. Thereafter, said Pothiraj passed away and as complete settlement towards loan taken by Pothiraj, he took over 58 cents of land at Kannanendal village. 4.5.2. Assessing Officer held that even though assessee claims to have lent money to Pothiraj, source of same is not explained and, therefore, treated it as undisclosed income of assessee. Thus, Assessing Officer brought to tax Rs. 3,50,000 being loan given to said Pothiraj and Rs. 64,000 being value of land. 4.5.3. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that even if Rs. 3,50,000 is brought to tax, same should be allowed as deduction towards bad debts in year of recovery because Assessing officer has already brought to tax Rs. 64,600 separately towards value of land purchased and, accordingly, allowed appeal of assessee by directing Assessing Officer to delete addition of Rs. 3,50,000. 4.5.4. Department preferred appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal finding that there were no books of account maintained by assessee and there was no material to show that debt has become bad, held that in block assessment, undisclosed income has to be computed in accordance with provisions of Act on basis of evidence found as result of search. It was further observed that assessee had not complied with requirement of section 36(2) of Act, which mandates that for writing off debt, it should be shown as income in previous year. Since there was no such disclosure and claim for previous year, it was held that claim of bad debt cannot be countenanced. Thus, Tribunal reversed order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4.6. Impugning order passed by Tribunal, present appeals are filed on substantial questions of law, referred to supra. We have heard erudite arguments of Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. M. Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent. issues raised in these appeals are dealt with on trot. Opening cash balance - (C. M. A. No. 1244 of 2007) 7.1. Before adverting to merits of this plea, it is apposite to refer to section 158BB(1) of Act, which reads as under: "158BB. Computation of undisclosed income of block period.-(1) undisclosed income of block period shall be aggregate of total income of previous years falling within block period computed, in accordance with provisions of this Act, on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence, as reduced by aggregate of total income, or, as case may be, as increased by aggregate of losses of such previous years, determined..." 7.2. According to learned counsel for assessee, Assessing Officer made certain deductions for years prior to 1988 as probable expenditure and, thus, came to conclusion that opening balance of Rs. 5,00,000 as on April 1, 1988, is incorrect. Expatiating said plea, he contended that as Department has accepted sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as opening balance, they cannot rely upon so-called expenditure of period prior to April 1, 1988, for disallowing claim of opening balance of Rs. 5,00,000, and same would be hit by provisions of section 158BB of 5,00,000, and same would be hit by provisions of section 158BB of Act, which envisages that evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence alone should be taken into consideration and not issues prior to block period. To bolster this plea, learned counsel relied on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 77 (MP); (ii) CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad); (iii) CIT v. K. Bhuvanendran [2008] 303 ITR 235 (Mad); (iv) CIT v. R. M. Patel (HUF) [2008] 298 ITR 274 (Mad); Substituted for in accordance with provisions of Chapter IV, on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with Assessing Officer by Finance Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. (v) CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi); (vi) CIT v. P. K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad); and (vii) CIT v. Sivaprabhaskar [2011] 238 CTR 457 (Mad). 7.3. To put it differently, main plea of learned counsel for assessee is that block assessment of undisclosed income is to be based on evidence found in search and material or information gathered in postsearch inquiries made on basis of evidence found in search. In present case, Assessing Officer is relying on probable material or evidence in nature of expenses incurred prior to block period to compute undisclosed income, which is contrary to provisions of section 158BB of Act. 7.4. learned counsel for assessee relied on provisions of section 158BB(1) of Act, post-amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2002, to contend that evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents or materials or information available with Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence alone should be taken into consideration and, in present case, probable expenses are not based on evidence and, therefore, it could not have been disallowed. 8.1. Per contra, Mr. M. Swaminathan, learned counsel for Revenue impressed upon court that provisions of section 158BB of Act, as amended and even prior to amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2002, would make no difference in so far as present case is concerned, as Assessing Officer has taken into consideration cash flow statement as admitted by assessee for purpose of computation of undisclosed income for block period. To buttress this argument, he relied upon annexure to assessment order and summary, which are relevant to present issue and read as under: I. Y.E. 31-3-1989 (assessment year 1989-90) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 45,000 2. Investments Rs. nil Rs. Total 45,000 Sources available as per b. records/materials Opening balance of Rs. 5,00,000 in TB Taken at Rs. 2,50,000 as directed by 1. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range II, Madurai Rs. 2,50,000.00 Rs. 2. Salary Rs. 22,000 2,72,000 Rs. c. Excess fund available (A B) 2,27,000 II. Y.E. 31-3-1990 (assessment year 1990-91) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 57,000 III. Y.E. 31-3-1991 (assessment year 1991-92) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 57,000 IV. Y.E. 31-3-1992 (assessment year 1992-93) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 57,000 V. Y.E. 31-3-1993 (assessment year 1993-94) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 72,000 VI. Y.E. 31-3-1994 (assessment year 1994-95) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 72,000 VII. Y.E. 31-3-1995 (assessment year 1995-96) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 75,000 VIII. Y.E. 31-3-1996 (assessment year 1996-97) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 75,000 IX. Y.E. 31-3-1997 (assessment year 1997-98) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 75,000 X. Y.E. 31-3-1998 (assessment year 1998-99) Investments made as per a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 75,000 XI. Y.E. 24-9-1998 (broken period assessment year 1999-2000) Investments made as per a. a. records/materials Rs. 1. Drawings 42,000 Summary Add income Less admitted in Undisclosed Undisclosed I/R or add Asst. Grand income income/ excess less Year statement total determined for fund returned if treated as block period any undisclosed income Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1989- ( ) ( ) 2,27,000 14,677 Nil ( ) 2,12,333 90 2,12,333 1990- 35,000 14,667 49,667 Nil 49,667 91 1991- 82,000 16,667 98,667 Nil 98,667 92 1992- ( ) ( ) ( ) 16,667 Nil 93 20,28,478 20,11,811 20,11,811 1993- 60,294 16,667 76,961 Nil 76,961 94 1994- ( ) ( ) 38,498 9,947 ( ) 28,551 Nil 95 28,551 1995- 7,12,605 22,240 7,34,845 Nil 7,34,845 96 1996- ( ) ( ) ( )11, 25,950 Nil 97 12,00,026 11,74,076 74,076 1997- 14,22,600 26,100 14,48,700 Nil 14,48,700 98 1998- ( ) ( ) 1,55,000 52,359 ( ) 1,02,641 Nil 99 1,02,641 Broken period 1999- 40,94,897 17,730 41,12,627 Nil 41,12,627 2000 Total 27,58,394.00 2,33,661 29,92,055.00 Nil 29,92,055 Rs. Total undisclosed income thus determined is 29,92,055 (or) Rs.29,92,100 Rs. Tax at rupees 29,92,100 works out to at 60 per cent. 17,95,260 Add interest under section 158BFA(1) November, 1998, to September, 2000 = 23 months Rs. 8,25,860 at 2 per cent. per month 46 per cent. works out to Rs. Total Tax payable 26,21,080 Less Tax paid as per return in Form No. 2B Rs. 45,232 Rs. Balance Tax payable 25,75,848 8.2. On basis of this computation of undisclosed income, it was contended that undisclosed income was determined after giving due weightage to drawings for each of block years. He pleaded that if there were drawings out of funds for each block assessment year, assessee cannot claim that entire amount of Rs. 5,00,000 remained as such till April 1, 1988, namely, beginning of block assessment. In support of this plea, he placed emphasis on reasoning given in assessment order, based on cash flow statement furnished by assessee, which is in following terms: "On opening balance of Rs. 5,00,000 (2 issue), I am of opinion that assessee is not entitled to get this benefit. First function was celebrated somewhere in 1979 and second function was celebrated in 1985. assessee presumed that moi receipts were kept intact till April 1, 1988. assessee was also not able to produce evidence in what form moi receipts were kept. When he is receiving moi from various parties/relatives it is also mandatory on part of assessee to pay back to parties/relatives on occasion like ear boring/house warming/marriage, etc., if not more, equal amount as moi. For function assessee would have spent heavy amount for booking halls, food, drinks, beverages, etc. Further, time gap is also very big. It is, therefore, hard to believe that he has not spent any amount in moi payments, celebration of functions, etc., till date of search. In this connection, I draw attention to finding given by me under head moi receipts. Therefore, assessee's plea that he has entire moi receipts intact on April 1, 1988, is not correct/true and, hence, it is rejected. Similarly, amount of Rs. 50,000 stated to have been given by her wife out of her savings. There is no evidence for this. assessee was employee. His wife was also not doing any business. He is also very poorly paid. In this circumstances, no savings would be possible. assessee's representative vehemently argued against stand taken by me once again before Joint Commissioner of Incometax, Madurai. matter was again discussed. Based on evidence produced and directions given by Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, amount of Rs. 2,50,000 is taken as opening balance and also as source." 8.3. He further stated that amount of Rs. 2,50,000 taken as opening balance by Assessing Officer was increased by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Rs. 3,00,000 and same was approved by Tribunal and in relation to increase in opening cash balance, there is no dispute raised by Department. 9.1. core question that arises is as to whether Assessing Officer relied upon any material other than what was found in course of search or proceedings thereafter to come to conclusion that sum of Rs. 2,50,000 alone should be shown as opening cash balance and other amount should be treated as undisclosed income. 9.2. We find that provision of section 158BB of Act is in relation to computation of undisclosed income for block period and that is to be done in accordance with provisions of Act on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials of information as are available with Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence. 9.3. In this case, Assessing Officer based on cash flow statement and statement of assessee recorded consequent to search held that opening cash balance should be Rs. 2,50,000 only. No doubt, we find that for drawing this inference Assessing Officer has stated that some expenditure should be allowable for previous years. We do not find any error in such reasoning, given statement of assessee in cash flow statement that for ten long years his drawing is around Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 75,000 during every block year. In view of admission of assessee that there is drawing of certain amount during every block year, which we have already set out in previous paragraphs, assessee cannot claim that there was no drawing at all prior to block assessment period 1989- 90. 9.4. contention of learned counsel for assessee that amount fixed as opening cash balance is based on no material itself cannot be countenanced because cash flow statement of assessee is record which speaks for itself. Nothing more is required for Assessing Officer in course of search to determine opening cash balance and for computation of undisclosed income for block period. What is relevant for computation of undisclosed income under section 158BB of Act is not merely evidence found as result of search but material information available with Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence. cash flow statement is piece of evidence before Assessing Officer given at behest of assessee and that material has been considered to compute undisclosed income. emphasis of section 158BB of Act is on computation of undisclosed income and for that necessary materials can be taken into consideration and one such material is cash flow statement and inference by Assessing Officer appears to be justified. It is not hypothetical or fanciful imagination of Assessing Officer, but stark reality, based on cash flow statement made by assessee and contents therein. 9.5. We find that decisions relied upon by assessee may not apply to facts of present case for following reasons: (i) In case of CIT v. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 77 (MP), issue was whether report obtained subsequently from Departmental Valuation Officer could be used and it was held that such document was not part of documents found in course of search or seizure and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on same. (ii) decision of this court in CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad), is also case of search conducted under section 132(1) of Act in respect of one A. P. Shanmugaraj and documents seized in course of such search were used as materials in case of assessee and in that view of matter, court found it not in consonance with section 158BB of Act. (iii) decision in CIT v. K. Bhuvanendran [2008] 303 ITR 235 (Mad), was case of no material found during search. (iv) In case of CIT v. R. M. Patel (HUF) [2008] 298 ITR 274 (Mad), seized material did not relate to assessee and, therefore, provisions of section 158BB of Act were held not be applicable. (v) decision in CIT v. Ashok Khetrapal [2007] 294 ITR 143 (Delhi) is in relation to case of no incriminating material found during course of search. (vi) In case of CIT v. P. K. Ganeshwar [2009] 308 ITR 124 (Mad), Division Bench of this court following decision in CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Mad) held that there was no material found during course of search operation and, therefore, it cannot be basis for making addition in block assessment. Hence, all these decisions do not throw any light on plea made by assessee. 9.6. On contrary, Mr. Swaminathan, learned standing counsel was at pains to point out decision of Kerala High Court in Vengat Bava v. CIT [2009] 318 ITR 276 (Ker). In said decision, based on cash flow statement furnished by assessee, certain additions towards unexplained investments and expenditure were made and additions to cash credit was also made. Under such circumstances, Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that when assessment is based on materials gathered on inspection which showed proof of investment in landed properties and expenditure in course of time under various heads, addition under sections 68 and 69 of Act is permitted in assessment under section 158BB read with section 158BC of Act. This is in line with key word in section 158BB of Act that it should be in accordance with provisions of Act and fortifies our view on this issue. 9.7. In such view of matter, we answer first substantial question of law against assessee and in favour of Revenue. Remodeling of house at No. 15B, Gokalay Road (C. M. A. No. 1244 of 2007) 10.1. assessee claimed that receipt of building construction materials valued at Rs. 90,000 was capital receipt and not taxable. Assessing Officer has held that it is not capital receipt and treated it as undisclosed income. explanation offered by assessee that friends had given him certain amount in consideration of his services rendered in resolution of disputes, in absence of details and materials, did not find favour with Assessing Officer, who treated it as undisclosed income. 10.2. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, modified assessment order and held that Rs. 5,000 should be exempted as per section 10(3) of Act and balance Rs. 85,000 was treated as undisclosed income, being casual and non-recurring type. Tribunal approved same. 10.3. assessee relied upon decision in CIT v. M. Ahmad Badsha Saheb [1943] 11 ITR 590 (Mad), where arbitration payments were treated as capital receipts. We find that admission of assessee itself is that it is not case of arbitration per se. It is claim of assessee that it was paid as gratis by some of his friends and relatives as matter of goodwill and that too in kind, namely, timber and asbestos. Therefore, said decision is of no help to assessee. 10.4. reliance placed by assessee on decision of this court in CIT v. Gopala Naicker Bangaru [2012] 344 ITR 297 (Mad) is of no assistance to assessee herein, as facts of said case are different in entirety. In said case, devotees out of natural love and affection and veneration voluntarily donated to assessee and it was held that amount received by assessee were gifts and they were not considerations for his profession/vocation. 10.5. In case on hand, Assessing Officer was of view that Rs. 7,00,000 has been expended towards renovation of house and Rs. 3,50,000 was claimed towards cost of material. That was accepted to some extent, except for Rs. 90,000. Therefore, onus would rest on assessee to show as to how sum of Rs. 90,000 was received by him either in kind or in value. There being no material to substantiate that, mere statement of assessee is of no avail and Department was, in our considered opinion, justified in treating balance amount of Rs. 85,000 as undisclosed income, giving exemption to extent of Rs. 5,000 as per section 10(3) of Act. 10.6. In such view of matter, second question of law is answered against assessee and in favour of Revenue. Bad debts - (C. M. A. No. 1245 of 2007) 11.1. This issue relates to advances made by assessee to one Pothiraj to tune of Rs. 3,50,000 and his claim that it has become bad debt. It is on record that after demise of Pothiraj, as complete settlement towards loan taken by Pothiraj, assessee took over 58 cents of land at Kannanendal village worth about Rs. 64,600. 11.2. Even though Assessing Officer brought to tax Rs. 3,50,000 given as loan and Rs. 64,600 being value of land, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), directed deletion of Rs. 3,50,000. However, Tribunal reversed said finding relying upon section 36 of Act. main reason for Tribunal to disallow such claim is that there were no books of account in this case and there was no seized material to show that debt has become bad. It is was observed that in block assessment, undisclosed income has to be computed in accordance with provisions of Act and, therefore, if assessee had not offered this amount as income in previous year, he cannot claim benefit of bad debt. finding of Tribunal on this issue is as under: "13. We have heard both parties and also perused documents placed on record. Section 36(1)(vii) reads as below with effect from April 1, 1989: 'Clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of Income-tax Act provides for deduction of amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in accounts of assessee in previous year. Thus, not it is mandatory condition that deduction can be allowed as bad debt only, when it is actually written off as irrecoverable not on mere provision. To allow bad debt as per section 36(2), following conditions are to be fulfilled: (i) It must be proper debt, or part thereof. (ii) Of revenue nature contradistinguished from capital nature. (iii) Which has been written off as irrecoverable in accounts of assessee for previous year. (iv)(a) Which has been taken into account in computing income of assessee of previous year in which amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of earlier previous year, or (b) which represents money lent in ordinary course of business of banking or money-lending which is carried on by assessee.' 14. From above, it is clear that only bad debt written off by assessee can be claimed as deduction. For claiming deduction under this provision assessee must establish that debt in question has become bad debt. very writing off of bad debt in books of account as bad is not sufficient to claim deduction under this provision. debt becomes bad not because creditor assessee has decided to treat it so at particular time, but because at particular point of time it was no longer possible to recover such debt. debtor had no means to recover same and thereby recovery would not be possible and these facts are to be established by assessee. 15. In present case, Assessee has not written off bad debt in books of account. assessee has not furnished details like date on which debt has become bad and when assessee has written it off as bad debt, etc. In fact, there is no books of account at all in this case and there is no seized material to show that debt has become bad. In block assessment, undisclosed income has to be computed in accordance with provisions of Income-tax Act on basis of evidence found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence. Where there is no evidence to suggest that debt has become bad and seized material also does not suggest that debt has become bad, it cannot be allowed as bad debt. Further, this debt has not been taken into account in computing income of assessee in any earlier year and condition laid down in section 36(2) is not fulfilled. ratio laid down in decision of Tribunal in case of K. Eswarappa v. Deputy CIT [2004] 89 ITD 229 (Chennai) relied on by assessee is not applicable to facts of present case. In view of this, we are of opinion that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in allowing ground of assessee on this issue. Accordingly, we reverse order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allow ground taken by Revenue." 11.3. On contrary, as pointed out by learned counsel for assessee, Assessing Officer rejected plea of assessee to treat Rs. 3,50,000 as bad debt by holding that same can only be treated as investment in money-lending in year of giving and it is not bad debt. reasoning given by Assessing Officer and finding of Tribunal based on section 36(2) of Act are on two independent interpretations of same issue. In such view of matter, on facts, there appears to be issue in relation to applicability of section 36(2) of Act, which should be considered by Assessing Officer. 11.4. In such view of matter, to extent indicated above, we remand matter to Assessing Officer. In result, T. C. (A.) No. 1244 of 2007 is dismissed and T. C. (A.) No. 1245 of 2007 is disposed of, by remanding matter to Assessing Officer, to extent indicated above. No costs. *** R. Mani v. Income-tax Officer