The ACIT, Circle-5, Surat V. Shri Razak Ayubgani Gandhiali, Surat

ITA 1468/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9871 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 A. Y: 2005-06 THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE 5, ROOM NO. 310, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI RAZAK AYUBGANI GHADHIALI, M/12, THABROSE HOUSE, VADA CHOUTA, SURAT PA NO. AAZPG 0081 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SANDIP GARG, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, SURAT DATE D 29-02-2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS A S UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SEC. 40A (2) (B) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,02,500/- MADE BY THE AO. 4. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EMBROIDERY ON JOB WORK BASIS AND HAD PAID DESIGN MA KING CHARGES TO 3 ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 2 OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT TO THOSE 3 PERSONS ON E OF WHOM SMT. SABINA S. GHADIALI STATED THAT THE SHE WAS GOING TO THE BUSINESS PREMISES ONCE IN A WEEK I.E. ON SUNDAY. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NOBODY WOULD WORK ON SUNDAY. THE OTHER PERSON SMT. FARZANA GHADIALI PURPOSELY DID NOT ATTEND WHILE THE THIRD PERSON SHR I SAMEER GHADIALI DID NOT ATTEND UNDER THE PRETEXT OF ACCIDENT. THE AO WA S OF THE VIEW THAT NO PROOF OF TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION OF THESE PERSONS W AS FILED AND EXPENDITURE WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH. THE AO, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.3,02,500/- U/S 40A(2) (B) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT SECTION 40 A (2) (B) GAVE POWERS TO THE AO TO ENSURE THAT PROFIT OF BUSINESS WAS NOT DIVERTED IN THE GUISE OF PAYMENT AND EXCESSIVENESS OF THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE ASSESSED BY FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES RENDE RED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SMT. SABINA S. GHADIALI WAS LOOKING AFTER DESI GN WORK OF COMPUTERIZED EMBROIDERY AND WAS PAID FOR THE SAME. SHE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND INFORMED THAT SHE WAS TRACKING VA RIOUS WEB SITES AND JOURNALS FOR THE PURPOSE, BUT THIS PART OF STATEMEN T WAS NOT INCORPORATED BY THE AO. SHE WAS FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME REGU LARLY SHOWING RECEIPTS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER PERSON SMT. FARZANA GH ADIALI WAS ALSO LOOKING AFTER DESIGN WORK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE I NCOME FROM THE FIRM WAS INCLUDED IN HER RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. SHE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO SINCE SHE WAS OUT OF SURAT FOR DIWALI HOLIDAYS AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO IN WR ITING. SHRI SAMEER GHADHIAL WAS LOOKING AFTER OVERALL MANAGEMENT, BANK ING AND ACCOUNTS OF THE FACTORY AND HAD 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN TE XTILE DESIGNING. HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AS HE HAD MET WITH A N ACCIDENT AND WAS OPERATED UPON AND REMAINED IN HOSPITAL FOR ABOUT 10 DAYS. HIS MEDICAL PAPERS WERE ALSO FILED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT RECEIPT IN HIS CASE WERE SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS PAID AT THE HIGHEST SLAB. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS A RESULT OF THEIR EFFORT S THE TURNOVER OF THE ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 3 ASSESSEE INCREASED FROM RS.30,00,000/- IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR TO RS.77,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS A ND DETAILS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT THE COMPLETE FACTS ON R ECORD. THE AO HAS IGNORED THE MEDICAL REPORT OF SHRI SAMEER GHADIALI WHO HAS MET WITH AN ACCIDENT AND THAT SMT. FARZANA GHADIALI WAS OUT OF SURAT. THE AO HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE 3 PERSONS WERE EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS HELD IN VARIOU S JUDGMENTS THAT BENEFITS DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO A PERSON FROM TH E SERVICES OR FACILITIES ARE TO BE JUDGED NOT FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE REV ENUE BUT THAT OF THE BUSINESSMAN. THE AO HAS NOWHERE BROUGHT ON RECORD A S TO HOW THE AO CONSIDERED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE PERSONS WERE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED MERELY ON GUESS WORK. ALL OF THE 3 PERSONS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 6. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY ALL THE 3 PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD ABOUT THEIR TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE B EEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND SU9BMITETD THAT THOUGH SECTION 40A (2) OF THE IT AC T APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENC E ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT MADE TO THESE 3 PERSONS WERE EXCESS IVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS OF SERVICES OR FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THEM. PB -12 IS THE STATEMENT OF SMT. ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 4 SABINA S. GHADIALI IN WHICH SHE CONFIRMED RENDERING SERVICES FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHE IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX. THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE AO ON 15-10- 2007 AND 19-11-2007, PB 33 AND PB -15 IN WHICH THE ABOVE FACTS WERE EXPLAINED AND IT WAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT SINCE SHRI SAMEER GHADIALI MET WITH AN ACCIDENT, THEREFORE, INSPECTOR MAY BE DEP UTED TO EXAMINE HIM. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HOWEVER, DID NO DEPUTE INSPECTOR TO EXAMINE HIM ON OATH DURING HIS ILLNESS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT NAGPUR ( TM) IN THE CASE OF JAGDAMBA ROLLER FLOUR MILL LTD. VS ACIT 121 TTJ 761 AND THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF RANGOON CHE MICAL WORKS (P) LTD. VS ACIT 100 TAXMAN (MAGZINE) 163. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 40A (2) (A) OF THE IT ACT READS AS UNDER: ( 2)(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY P ERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, AND THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCE SSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO H IM THEREFROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONS IDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE AL LOWED AS A DEDUCTION. ITAT NAGPUR BENCH ( TM ) BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGDA MBA ROLLER FLOUR MILL LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: CONCLUSION: AO HAVING MADE NO ENQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE DIRECTOR IN THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER S. 40A (2) ON THE BASIS THAT THE ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 5 REMUNERATION PAID IN THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THAT PAID IN THE EARLIER YE AR. 8. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF RANGOON CHEM ICAL WORKS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 40A (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BUSI NESS DISALLOWANCE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 WHETHER, WHERE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SALES WAS D UE TO SPECIAL EFFORTS PUT IN BY DIRECTORS WAS ACCEPTED AN D WHERE NO COMPARABLE CASE WAS BROUGHT ON TO PROVE TH AT HIGHER COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTORS WAS EXCESSIVE, ANY PART OF COMMISSION COULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTIO N 40A (2) HELD, NO. 9. ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF MICRO INSTR UMENT CO. VS ITO 12 DTR (CHD) (TRIB) 501 HELD THAT IN ANY CASE EVEN FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) (B), IT IS FOR TH E AO TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERV ICES. NO EFFORT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, CONSI DERING THE AFORESAID, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND REJECT THE RELIABI LITY OF THE ACCOUNTS BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND THE PRONOUNCEMENTS MADE BY VARIOUS BENCHES NOTE D ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE FI NDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE AO ADMITTEDLY DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXP ENDITURE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) OF THE IT ACT. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT SMT. SABINA S. GHADIALI RENDERED SERVICES FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY HER IN HER ST ATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO ON OATH. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT SMT. FARZANA GHADIALI IS OUT OF SURAT ON DIWALI HOLIDAY AND THAT SHRI SAMEER GHADIALI MET WITH AN ACCIDENT. REQUEST WAS MADE TO EXAMINE H IM ON OATH ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 6 THROUGH THE INSPECTOR BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO DUE TO ABOVE REASONS. THE AO DID NOT TAKE ANY ST EPS IN THE MATTER DESPITE ABOVE REPLY WAS FILED ON 15-10-2007 AND 19- 11-2007. THE AO PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30-11-200 7 TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IGNORING THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESS EE. SINCE THE AO FAILED TO MAKE LOCAL INQUIRIES THROUGH THE INSPECTOR IN VI EW OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD B E DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCU RRED IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES. ADMITTEDLY, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREA SED FROM RS.33,00,000/- TO RS.77,00,000/- APPROXIMATELY DUE TO THE EFFORTS MADE BY THESE 3 PERSONS FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR IS LABILE TO BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE AO DISALLOWED ONLY 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ABOVE PA RSONS RENDERED SERVICES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDER ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LEANED CIT (A), WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE. WE ACCORDINGLY, CON FIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE. 10. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,47,125/- OUT OF WAGES MADE BY THE A. O.. 11. THE AO HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF LAST YEARS PE RCENTAGE OF WAGES, TURNOVER, EXPENDITURE OR WAGES IN CURRENT YEAR SHOU LD HAVE BEEN RS.8,67,121/- AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RISE IN WAG ES OF 10%, EXCESS WAGE PAID WORKED OUT TO RS.5,47,125/- AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT COMPLE TE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 7 WAGES WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AND PAYMENTS IN S MALL AMOUNTS. THE REQUIRED WAGE REGISTER COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED SINC E LABOUR BEING MIGRANTS; THE RATE OF ATTRITION WAS MORE. THEREFORE , PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY VOUCHERS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. T HE AO DID NOT CALL FOR THE VOUCHERS AND ADOPTED A PRESUMPTIVE METHOD OF WO RKING THE ALLOWABLE WAGES BASED ON PRO RATA OF THE TURNOVER. THE AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT HERE WAS INCREASE OF 154% IN THE T URNOVER COMPARED TO THE LAST YEAR. THERE WAS ALSO INCREASE IN MACHINERY BY RS.55,00,000/- AND HIGHER WAGES HAD TO BE PAID SINCE THE LABOUR WA S NOT EASILY AVAILABLE DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF EMBROIDERY UNITS IN THE MARKET. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR WORKING OF THE SAID DISAL LOWANCE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DELETED THE ADDITION AND NOTED THAT THE AO W ITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS MERELY ON GUESS WORK AND WITHOUT BRING ANY EV IDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD MADE THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION WAS ACCOR DINGLY DELETED. 12. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO P B-8 WHICH IS THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRED T O PB-35 TO 43 WHICH ARE THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE ON THE WAGES FILED B EFORE THE AO. PB-44 IS THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO DATED 28-11-2007 IN W HICH IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF MONTH WISE JOB WORK INCOME, MONTH WISE WAGES, WAGE PAYMENT VOUCHERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATIO N ARE ENCLOSED THEREWITH. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS JUS TIFICATION IN INCREASE OF THE WAGES AND THAT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INC REASED BY 154% AGAINST THE TURNOVER OF THE LAST YEAR APPROXIMATELY RS.30,00,000/- HAVE BEEN INCREASED TO APPROXIMATELY RS.77,00,000/-. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY ALL THE VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH THE DETAILS BUT THE AO CHOSE NOT TO MENTION THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRONGLY DISALLOWED PART OF THE WAGES. ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 8 13. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. THE ASSESSEE FILED SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE AO IN HIS REPLY. ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR INCREASE IN T HE WAGES. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERABLY ENHANCED AS COMPAR ED TO INCREASE OF WAGES. ALL THE VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISALLOW P ART OF THE WAGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 14. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH AT 10% INSTEAD OF 15% MADE BY THE AO. 15. THE AO DISALLOWED 15% OF THE EXPENDITURE OUT OF CONVEYANCE, RAVELING, SHOP/ OFFICE EXPENSES ETC. BECAUSE SOME O F THE VOUCHERS WERE SELF-MADE AND EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CASH. THE L EARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRIC TED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10%. 16. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REDUCING PART OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE AO HAS NOT G IVEN ANY BASIS FOR DISALLOWING 15% OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1468/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 5 VS RAZAK A. GHADIALI 9 17. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30-09-2010. SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 30-09-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD