M/s. Rajesh & Co., Rourkela V. ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela

ITA 278/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5319 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K BANDYOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHESHYAM CHIMANKA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Commercial expediency
• Section: 142(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 278 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 - 2009 M/S. RAJESH & CO. 1 ST FLOOR, PARMAR BUILDING, KACHERY ROAD, ROURKELA. VS. ITO, WARD - 2, ROURKELA. PAN/GIR NO. AADFR 3106 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RADHESHYAM CHIMANKA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K.BANDYOPADHYAY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 /1 2 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 1 2 / 2017 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - SAMBALPUR DATED 7.4.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADING, SUPPLY & ERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL & ELECTRICAL GOODS AND ACCESSORIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 13.9.2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,95,,492/ - . RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT CREATING A REFUND OF RS.48,823/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143 ( 2) AND 142(1) WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR NECESSARY COMPLIANCE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICES, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE 2 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.60,06,149/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.4,95,492/ - . 3. IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.5,72,842/ - BY THE CIT(A). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.27,64,588/ - PAID TO 8 AGENTS AS PER THE AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO THEM TO RECORD THEIR STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO OBSERVED THAT ONE OF HE COMMISSION AGENTS COULD NOT BE EXAMINED SINCE THE SUMMON WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. ANOTHER AGENT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE BASIS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO HIM. STATEMENTS OF OTHER AGENTS WERE RECORDED. ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT AND, THEREFORE, SAME WERE NOT GENUINE AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE SAME. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED CERTAIN POINTS, WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REPORT DATED 9.1.2013 TO THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE 3 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.5,72,842/ - , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO THE AGENTS BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO WITH THEM AND AS PER THE TERMS LAID DOWN IN THOSE AGREEMENTS. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THIS FACT HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING WHICH WERE SENT TO T HE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT. TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE COMMISSION PAYMENT AS PER REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 194H. ALL THE COMMISSION AGENTS ARE FILING RETURNS OF, INCOME AND COPIES OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THEM FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 HAVE BEEN FIL ED IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND IRREGULARITIES FOUND ON ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS. HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION CAN BE DISALLOWED AS NOT GENU INE BASED ON THOSE DISCREPANCIES AND IRREGULARITIES. FURTHER, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT U/S.43B, A SECTION WHICH IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE FOLLOWING YEAR I.E. AY 2009 - 10, THE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED SIMILAR COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AGENTS IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26.11.2012. TAKING ALL THESE INTO ACCOUNT, IT IS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING AGENTS MAY BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE: LIAISONINQ AGENT COMMISSION RECEIVED (RS.) RETURN INCOME ( RS.) NARAYAN DAS, 4,73,218.00 1,11,680.00 SUDHANSHU PATRA 4,73,218.00 95,542.00 SANDIP KUMAR MITRA 3,61,139.00 1,15,130.00 BIJESH NAIR 3,61,139.00 1,15,140.00 KISHORE KUMAR JOSHI 2,61,516.00 1,13,510.00 SUBIR GHOSH 2,61,516.00 1,13,016.00 SO FAR AS COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO SRI SOHAN KUMAR SAH OF RS.3,11,326/ - IS, CONCERNED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME IS CONFIRMED SINCE THE SUMMONS SENT TO HIM CAME BACK UN - SERVED AS 'ADDRESSEE NOT FOUND' AND HE W AS NOT PRODUCED BEFOR E THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT OR AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDING. SIMILARLY, THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.2,61,516/ - ALLEGEDLY MADE TO SRI ASIT KUMAR CHATTERJEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED SINCE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, HE HAS CATE GORICALLY STATED THAT THE FIRM HAS PAID COMMISSION TO HIM ON ITS OWN AND 4 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 TH AT HE IS UNAWARE OF THE METHOD OR THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF THE/ COMMISSION PAID TO HIM. TO SUM UP, OUT OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 27, 64,588/ - DISALLOWED BY THE AO, AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,72,842/ - IS CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE OF RS.21,91,746/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF 27,64,588/ - PAID TO 8 AGENTS AS PER THE AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THEM. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED ALL 8 COMMISSION AGENTS TO RECORD THEI R STATEMENTS. OUT OF 8 COMMISSION AGENTS , ONE AGENT COULD NOT BE EXAMINED AS THE SUMMON WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. ANOTHER AGENT HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE BASIS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO HIM ON ITS OWN . OTHER SIX COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE CONFIRMED OF HAVING RECEIVING PAYMENTS AND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS AS PER SECTION 194H. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.21,91,746/ - PAID TO SIX COMMI SSION AGENTS AMOUNT OF RS.5,72,842/ - WAS DISALLOWED BEING COMMISSION PAYMENT TO OTHER TWO COMMISSION AGENTS. 7. BEFORE US, LD A.R. COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF RS.5,72,842/ - TO TWO AGENTS. 8. LD D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 9. PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REVEALS THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY ASPECT WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO AGENTS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFI RMED AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE SECOND ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE AGITATES TO THE PART CONFIRMATION OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.8,46,870/ - . 11. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.20,34,320/ - CONSISTS OF RS.8,46,870/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TOUR AND RS.11,87,450/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TOUR INSIDE THE COUNTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO TRAVELLING EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOS ES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS ON FOREIGN TOUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.8,46,870/ - . SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING TOUR CONDUCTED INSIDE THE COUNTRY FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,87,450/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF RS.11,87,450/ - , WHICH COMES TO RS.2,37,490/ - . HENCE, THE TOTAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS RS.10,84,360/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. ON APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE CIT( A) ALLOWED THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON DOMESTIC TRAVEL OF RS.11,87,450/ - AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,46,870/ - ON FOUR TOURS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 13. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY T HE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOREIGN TOUR FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE DETAILS OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME. HE ALSO FURNISHED XERO X COPIES OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON TOUR OF FOREIGN TOURS OF THE PARTNER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGES WERE MADE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE VISITED FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN THE LEGITIMATE FURTHERANCE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL . 14. CONTRA, LD D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 15. AFTER CONS IDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT FURNISHING THE XEROX COPIES OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE FOREIGN TOUR OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SSESSEES BUSINESS. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN OR SUBMIT ANY REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF ATTENDING THE TRADE FAIR OR HOW THE ASSESSEE BENEFITED FROM THE SAID FOREIGN TOURS. AS FAR AS THE PAYMENTS BY CROSSED CHEQUE, PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THESE PAYMENTS ARE ONLY FOR ACQUIRING FOREIGN EXCHANGE, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A FORM OF MONEY 7 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 ITSELF. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED FOREIGN EX CHANGE, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE EXCHANGES SO ACQUIRED HAS BEEN SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE MERE PURCHASE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE A GOOD EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCU RRED EXPENDITURE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES ON FOREIGN TRIPS. IN ORDER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) FOR EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRIPS, WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE REASONABLE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR INCURRING THE FOREIGN TRIPS BUT IT SHOULD ALSO BE ESTABLISHED THAT A) THE EXPENDITURE IS ACTUALLY INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND B) THAT THE RELATED FOREIGN TRIP IS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE BONAFIDE BUSINESS PURPOSE. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE US. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,46,870/ - MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL OF THE PART NER S . HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,61,516/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ERECTION AND CONTRACT PAYMENT. 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED PAYMENT OF RS.2,61, 516/ - MADE TO SRI SUPRABHAT MANDAL ON ERECTION & CONTRACT AND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S.194C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 8 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 OBSERVED THAT SRI SUPRABHAT MANDAL HAS RENDERED SERVICE AS A LIAISONING A GENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT ON POINT NO.2 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE CONTRACT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO GET COMMISSION @ 0.21% OF THE SALE SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF RS.3,00,000/ - PER MONTH. IN VIEW OF THIS BACKDROP OF THE CASE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE PARTICULARS IN FORM NO.16A AND THE TERMS AND CONDITION OF THE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED RS.2,61,516/ - . 18. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER.. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTIMATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE EXPENDITURE AND PLEADED TO ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE. 19. THE CIT(A) DID NOT SATISFY HIMSELF WITH THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS THE BASIC REASON FOR ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED. HE OBSERVED THAT AS PER AGREEMENT, SRI MANDAL WAS TO PROVIDE LIAISONING SERVICES. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,61,515/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS GENUINE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 21. CONTRA, LD D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS 9 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 CONTRADICTION IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON ONE HAND, IN FORM NO.16A ISSUED TO CONTRACTOR, NAMELY SRI SUPRABHAT MANDAL, IT IS MENTIONED THAT TDS U/S.194C HAS BEEN MADE ON ERECTION AND CONTRACT PAYMENT AND ON THE OTH ER HAND, IN THE AGREEMENT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT SRI MANDAL HAS RENDERED SERVICE AS LIASONING AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US ALSO, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON OF DISCREPANCIES SHOWN IN FORM NO.16A AND AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. THE LAST ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,95,450/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES. 24. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.22,45,117/ - UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES AS UNDER: 1. SEMINAR EXP. RS.4,04,488 2. PETROL & FUEL EXP. RS 4,89,739 3 POSTAGE & REGISTRATION RS,2,20,377 4. PRINTING & STATIONERY RS.2,75,382 5. REPAIR & MAINTENANCE RS. 2,27,772 6. REPAIR & MAINTENANCE (FOR COMPUTERS) RS. 2,37,778 7. CARRIAGE OUTWARD RS.2,17,273 8. FEES & SUBSCRIPTION(FOREIGN MAGAZINE) RS. 83,285 9. MISC. EXP. RS. 89,023 TOTAL : RS.22,45, 117 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF THE 10 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 EXPENSES CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE - MENTIONED HEADS OF EXPENSES , WHICH COMES TO RS.4,49,023/ - . 25. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE MOST OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH ON THE BASIS OF SELF - MADE VOUCHERS, THE ESTIMATION OF DISALLOWANCE IS PROPER. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT ESTIMATION IS ON HIGHER SIDE. 26. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AN D NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. BEFORE US, LD A.R. COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY GOOD REASON TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OR TO TAKE ANY CONTRARY VIEW. T HEREFORE, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED ON 14 /1 2 /2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 14 /1 2 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 11 ITA NO. 278/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : M/S. RAJESH & CO. 1 ST FLOOR, PARMAR BUILDING, KACHERY ROAD, ROURKELA 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 2, ROURKELA 3. THE CIT(A) - SAMBALPUR 4. PR.CIT - SAMBALPUR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//