IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CIRCUIT BENCH : RANCHI [BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM AND GEORGE M ATHAN, JM] ITA NO.263/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SANJAY JAIN, PROP. JAIN TRANSPORT, J. J. ROAD, UPPER BAZAR, RANCHI 834 001 (JHARKHAND) PAN:ABQPJ 9977 Q VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY PODDAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI CHAUDHARY ORAON, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02-11-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02-11-2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), RANCHI, JHARKHAND IN APPEAL NO.184 /RAN/OTH/10-11 DATED 27-05-2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI AJAY PODDAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI CHAUDHARY ORAON, LEARNED DR REPRE SENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 10% OUT OF THE OFF ICE EXPENSES, EXPENSES ON OWN TRUCKS AND TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THESE WERE PURELY AD-HOC DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ITA NO. 263/R/2014 (AY: 2008-09) 2 AO HOLDING THAT COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NO T PRODUCED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HA D CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE ALSO PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE TEST-CHECKED AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO IN PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE BEING NO DEFECTS POINTED OUT, NO AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT HE HAS DONE TEST-CHECK. THE AO HAS NOT MENTION ED AS TO ANY DEFECTS HAVE BEEN FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE TES T-CHECK. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT COMPLETE. IF, THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED, THEN TO THE EXTENT THAT THE EXPENDITURE REMAINED UNPROVE D OR UNSUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED F OR ADDITION. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS MENTION ED EARLIER, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATE BASIS MORE SO, AN AD-HOC ADDITION CAN BE MADE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. ITA NO. 263/R/2014 (AY: 2008-09) 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARING ON 02-11-2015. SD/- SD/- ( N .S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 02-11-2015 L LL LK DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFTS ARE ENCLOSED IN THE F ILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 02.11.15 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02.11.15 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 02.11.15 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 02.11.15 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 02.11.15 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.11.15 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ` 02.11.15 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER