ORDER 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 21st October, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No. I.T.(SS) No. 203/DEL/2001 for the block period from 1.4.1988 to 14.10.1998. 2. A search was conducted in premises bearing No. R-304, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi on 14th October, 1998. The premises was occupied by the parents of the Assessee as well as by the Assessee. During the course of search, certain loose papers and documents were recovered which, according to the Assessing Officer, showed that some amount was paid towards purchase of the property over and above the amount disclosed in the conveyance deed relating to the property. The Assessing Officer determined that there was an unexplained investment to the extent of Rs. 41,50,000/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for the block period in question. 3. The Assessees appeal against the assessment order was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who held that the addition of Rs. 41.50 lakh was not corroborated by the evidence brought on record. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that documents recovered during the search were in the handwriting of the Assessees father. For some reason which, learned Counsel for the Revenue has not been able to explain, the Revenue did not examine the Assessees father with regard to the contents of the documents which were recovered. The Revenue, however, did examine the mother of the Assessee but she denied having paid any amount to the seller over and above the amount disclosed in the conveyance deed. The statements of some flat owners who had purchased the property in the same building were recorded and their statements also disclosed more or less the same price as having been paid for purchase of similar flats. Even the sellers who were examined denied having received any consideration over and above the amount disclosed in the conveyance deed. On these facts, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there was no material which would suggest that the Assessee had entered into a transaction whereby there was unexplained investment made by him. Even the sellers who were examined denied having received any consideration over and above the amount disclosed in the conveyance deed. On these facts, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there was no material which would suggest that the Assessee had entered into a transaction whereby there was unexplained investment made by him. The CIT(A) also found that the documents recovered were not kept in the form of a diary or as an accounts book but were loose sheets of paper and, therefore, it was difficult to say that they pertained to amounts paid over and above the amount disclosed in the conveyance deed. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, we are of the view that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal having taken a concurrent view that the documents did not disclose payment by the Assessee of amounts over and above that shown in the conveyance deed, it cannot be said that there was an unexplained investment which was liable to be taxed. The fact that the father of the Assessee, who admittedly was the author of the recovered loose sheets, was not at all examined by the Assessing Officer, can only lead to the conclusion that ~he best evidence available was not brought on record. 6. We are of the view that the opinion expressed by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal were based on the documents available on record, and are unexceptionable. 7. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.