The ITO, Ward-6(4), Surat V. M/s. Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Surat

ITA 2063/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 DATE OF HEARING:21.9.10 DRAFTED:21.9.10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), ROOM NO.613, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJAURA GATE, SURAT V/S . M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYSNTHETICS, PLOT NO.275/2, G.I.D.C., PANDESARA, SURAT PAN NO.AAKFS5319N (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI R.K.DHANESTA, DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI VINOD GOYAL, AR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, SURAT IN APPEAL NO.CAS- IV/366/06-07 DATED 25- 02-2008. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-6(4) , SURAT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29-12-2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION AT RS.1,99,483/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DYEING O F CLOTH ON JOB-WORK BASIS AND RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL FILED ON 09-11 -2004 ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 2 IN FORM NO.3CD AND 3CB TOGETHER WITH PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AND BALANCE- SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ESTIMATED THE SUPPRESSION PRODUCTION AT RS.1,99,483 /- COMPARING MONTH-WISE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY WITH PRODUCTION BY TAKIN G JAN04 AS BENCH-MARK FOR WORKING OUT PRODUCTION IN METERS AND APPLIED THE SA ME FOR THE REST OF THE MONTHS. THE AO ALSO WORKED OUT THE PRODUCTION ON TH E BASIS OF LABOUR CHARGES BY ADOPTING THE SAME JAN04 AS BENCHMARK AN D HE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE QUA RTERLY RATIO OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMED AND LABOUR CHARGES, ESTIMATED THE SUPPRESS ION OF PRODUCTION AT RS.1,99,483/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FIN DINGS IN PAGE-4 & 5 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE MONTH O F JANUARY, 2004 AS THE BENCHMARK FOR WORKING OUT THE PRODUCTION DURING THE OTHER 11 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. IT APPEARS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REASONS FOR LOW PRODUCTION IN OTH ER MONTHS HAS NOT BEEN FULLY APPRECIATED BY THE AO HE HAS ALSO ADMITT ED THAT A VARIATION OF 25% IS POSSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF FLUCTUATION OF EL ECTRICITY, DAY TO DAY REPAIRING OF THE MACHINERY, MODIFICATION IN DYEING & PRINTING ETC. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS BASED ON CONSUMPTION OF UNIT OF ELECTRICITY VIS--VIS PRODUCTION IN METERS. I AM INCLINED TO AG REE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY WORKED OUT BY T HE AO BILL WHICH WAS RAISED FOR THE MONTH WHICH COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRICITY USED AND THE PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS OBTAINED PER M ONTH. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT THE PRODUCTION WOULD BE SEVERELY EFFECTED IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE YEAR DUE TO STRIKE IN THE WEAVING INDUSTRY WHEN THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GET SUFFICIEN T RAW MATERIAL BUT THE EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF FIXED OVERHEADS LIKE ELECTR ICITY, LABOUR CHARGES ETC. WOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. FUIRTH4ER , THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY WOULD FORM AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN A CAS E WHERE A SINGLE PROCESS FOR PRODUCTION IS USED BUT IN A DYING & PRI NTING HOUSE, THE PROCESS ITSELF IS COMPLEX AND COMPRISES A NUMBER OF SUB-PROCESSES EACH OF WHICH WOULD CONSUME DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF ELE CTRICITY. IT COULD BE POSSIBLE THAT BY CONSUMPTION OF MORE ELECTRICITY IN A SUB-PROCESS, LOWER QUANTITY OF MATERIAL IS PROCESSED WHEREAS IN OTHER SUB-PROCESS LOWER CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY COULD YIELD BETTER PRODU CTION. I ALSO DO NOT UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY ONE PARTICULAR MONTH OF THE YE AR HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS THE BENCHMARK FOR WORKING OUT HYPOTHETIC AL PRODUCTION IN THE OTHER 11 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. IT APPEARS THAT TH IS MONTH HAS BEEN ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 3 SELECTED BY THE AO, SINCE TAKING ANY OTHER MONTH AS THE BENCHMARK WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE RESULTS DESIRED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE PRODUCTION RECORD OF THE APPELLANT IS SUBJECT T O CHECK BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES, WHO HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY ABNORMALI TY OR ANY CLEARANCE OF GOODS ILLICITLY FROM THE FACTORY PREMISES NOR HA S THE AO BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I AM ALSO INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC ITY AND OTHER ITEMS LIKE GAS AND DIESEL WOULD DEPEND ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, LIKE QUALITY OF DYEING & PRINTING, COLOLUR & SHADE OF THE PRINTED M ATERIAL, SPECIAL PROCESS REQUIRED FOR SOME FABRICS AND POWER CONSUMP TION IN NON- PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES. THESE ASPECTS HAVE PROBABLY NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AO, WHO HAS SIMPLY WORKED OUT TH E SO-CALLED SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTIO N IN ONLY ONE MONTH OF THE YEAR WHICH IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. I HAVE A LSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT SPECIALLY THE CASE OF PIGEON TEXTILE (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEAL) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY WORKING OUT AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CLOTH ON THE BASIS OF ELE CTRICITY CONSUMED. THE HONBLE ITAT IN THIS CASE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN JOB WORK AND WAS NOT ENGAGED DOING ANY PRODUCTIO N OF ITS OWN AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF DOING JOB WORK OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT I S ALSO A FACT THAT THE COURT HAVE VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT UNRELIABILITY, IN CORRECTNESS AND INCOMPLETENESS OF ACCOUNTS HAS TO BE SHOWN BY THE D EPARTMENT BEFORE REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND STRONG AND SUFFICIEN T REASONS MUST BE GIVEN TO INDICATE THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE UNRELIABLE . THE COURTS HAS ALSO HELD (THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ST. TERESA OIL MILLS - 76 ITR 365) THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THERE WAS A DIS PARITY IN CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF B OOK RESULTS BECAUSE SUCH VARIOUS COULD BE DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT PRO PER FOR THE AO TO WORK OUT THE AVERAGE PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF PER UNIT CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NO WHERE D OUBTED THE CONSUMPTION OF OTHER MATERIALS LIKE COLOUR & CHEMIC ALS, LABOUR CHARGES ETC. WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR WORKING OUT THE SUPPRESSION OF JOB WORK CHARGES. IT IS ALSO IMPORTA NT TO NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE APPELLANTS FACTORY IS OVER S EEN BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. TAKING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS OF THE CA SE INTO ACCOUNT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MA KING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGES IS NOT IN OR DER AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 4 4. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT ISSUE, THE PRIMARY O BJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS, HE ESTIMATED THE SUPPRE SSED PRODUCTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION AND JOB WORK CHARG ES BY TAKING THE BENCHMARK FOR THE MONTH OF JAN04 AND APPLIED FOR R EST OF 11 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS AND ALSO MAINTAINED DAY-TO-DAY ST OCK REGISTER AND IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LE TTER DATED 21-11-2006. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO IN THE PRE SENT YEAR IS MUCH BETTER COMPARING THE EARLIER YEAR AND EVEN IT IS NOT THE A LLEGATION OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS SUPPRESSION IN PRICE OF ITEMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON JOB WORK. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT GROSS PROFIT RATIO IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH ANY OF OTHER PARTY IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF TRADE. WE FIND THAT GROSS PROFIT RATIO IN THE PRESENT YEAR HAS INCREASED FROM 9.57% TO 9.93%. WE ALSO FIND THAT ARBITRARILY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND WITHOUT FINDING ANY DEFECT PRESUME THE SUPPRESSION OF PRODU CTION AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. AS REGARDS TO MERITS OF THE CASE, REVENUE BEFORE US COULD NOT ADD UCE ANY REASON THAT THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IS PERVERSE OR NOT IN THE FACTS O F THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RE VENUES ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF COAL ASH AND COLOUR CHEMICALS TO RS.20,000/-. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2 :- [2] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COAL/ASH COLOUR CHEMICALS TO RS.20,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,10,659/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS MADE ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 5 DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COAL ASH AND CHEMICALS A T RS.1,10,659/- AS SALE PROCEED OF COAL ASH AND AVERAGE YIELD OF COAL ASH B URNS AT 1/10 TH OF COAL WHICH COMES TO RS.20/- AND ACCORDINGLY HE CALCULATE D THE VALUE OF COAL ASH AT RS.48,379/- AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF EMPTY CONTAIN ER OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS SOLD AT RS.120/- PER CONTAINER AND MADE A DDITION AT RS.62,280/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PAGE-6 AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. THE AO HAS WORK ED OUT THE NUMBER OF EMPTY DRUMS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL TH E CHEMICAL & COLOURS WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN DRUMS. T HAT IS NOT VERY LIKELY SINCE SMALL QUANTITIES OF SPECIFIC COLOUR & CHEMICALS WOULD BE PURCHASED IN POLYTHENE OR PAPER BAGS. SIMILARLY, A LARGE AMOUNT OF COAL ASH COULD NOT BE USED TO REALIZE ANY WORTHWHILE SAL E VALUE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE IF THE T OTAL ADDITION ON THESE TWO ACCOUNTS IS RESTRICTED TO RS.20,000/- ON N ESTI MATED BASIS. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STAT ED THAT THE COLOUR AND CHEMICALS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAPER A ND POLYTHENE BAGS. SINCE SMALL QUANTITIES ON SPECIFIC COLOUR AND CHEMI CALS WERE PURCHASED, HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY SALE OF EMPTY CO NTAINERS OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY EVI DENCE HAS JUST ESTIMATED THIS ADDITION. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE ON COAL ASH NOT USED TO REALIZE IN THE WORTHWHILE SALE VALUE AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AT RS.20,000/-. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,12,530/- MADE BY A SSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND SALARY TO STAFF. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LABOURER FOR VERIFICATION, HENCE, 1/5 TH OF TOTAL LABOUR CHARGES AT ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 6 RS.17,29,464/- TOWARDS LABOUR EXPENSES AND SALARY A T RS.3,33,187/- WAS DISALLOWED AT RS.4,12,530/- BEING 1/5 TH AT RS.20,62,651/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND BEFORE CIT(A) ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASKED FOR APPEARANCE OF LABOURERS AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF MONTH-WISE DEDUCTION OF PF & ESI AND THAT WAGE REGISTERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THES E ARGUMENTS THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS I N PAGE-6 & 7 :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMI SES. WHEN HE HAS ACCEPTED THE WAGES FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY AS CORR ECT, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DERIVED WHEN THE WAGES PAID IN T HE OTHER MONTHS ARE LOWER THAN THIS. FURTHER, THE WAGES ARE PAID TO WORKERS, WHO ARE MOSTLY ILLITERATE AND FOR THAT REASON, THE VOUCHERS WOULD ALWAYS BE SELF MADE. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT EXPECTED TO MENTION THE EXACT NATURE OR QUANTUM OF WORK DONE BY THE LABOURER ON THE VOUCHER ITSELF. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING SUCH A DISALLOWANCE, ESPEC IALLY WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTING THE FINDINGS WAS ALLOWED T O THE APPELLANT. ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. 10. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE WAGE REGISTER AND ALSO PROVED THAT HE HAS DEDUCTED PF & ESI, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH PROMPT ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE AS HE NEVER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE LABOURERS FOR VERIFICATIO N. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PACKING EXPENSES. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.4 :- [4] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PACKING EXPENSES TO RS.10,000 INSTEAD OF RS.45,975 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING T HROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ITA NO.2063/AHD/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WD-6(4) SRT V. M/S. SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETIC S PAGE 7 DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF PACKING EXPENSES AS NO EVIDENCE WERE FILED BEFO RE HIM. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONTENDED THAT COMPL ETE DETAILS OF PACKING MATERIALS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DAT ED 25-09-2006. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING IN PAGE-7 AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS. IT IS SEEN THAT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT B UT THE AO DID NOT DOUBT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME SINCE THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY DID NOT MENTION ANY SUCH DETAILS. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON AN AD HOC BASIS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE COMPLETE VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED, A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10 ,000/- WOULD BE REASONABLE IN THIS CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AT RS.10,000/- BY NOTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE CORR ECTNESS OF PACKING EXPENSES AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS. WE FIND THAT THE RESTRICTION OF ADDITION AT RS.10,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.45,975/- I S WITHIN A REASONABLE LIMIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APP EAL. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 /09/2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (MAHAVIR SIN GH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 21/09/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD