Two grounds are raised by assessee in this appeal. first one is about disallowances of Rs. 1,892 regarding presentation articles. ITO has held that each item being of value of above Rs. 50 was clearly disallowable. CIT(A) held that contention of assessee that small presentation items like handbag, purses, etc., have been distributed to attract customers is not supported by any evidence and as it is not established that expenditure has been incurred for purpose of promoting sales claim was not allowable. ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that all these articles were of value below Rs. 50. There appears to be some confusion. We are, therefore, restoring matter back to ITO who would allow expenditure with regard to those articles whose individual value is below Rs. 50. ITO disallowed Rs. 14,354 under s. 40A(3). Commissioner(A) allowed deduction of Rs. 5,000 and upheld disallowance of Rs. 9,354. This was cash payment to M/s Jain & Jain vide their Bill No. 2683 dt 19th Feb., 1979 for purchase of VHF tower materials. assessee sought to explain circumstances under which cash payment was made vide its letter dt. 30th Dec., 1981. payment was made after bank hours and there was strike i n clearing house which compelled assessee to purchase important materials by paying cash. ITO held that several other payments had been made by cheques and hence circumstances under which payments had to be made in cash including so-called strike in clearing house could not be accepted as sufficient justification for making payments otherwise then by cheques and bank drafts. Commissioner(A), after referring in details to explanation filed by assessee merely held that provisions of r. 6DD(j)(i) were not applicable. He upheld disallowance of Rs. 9,354. assessee is in appeal. ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee had to purchase equipment as per directions of Police Department. assessee did not have much time to purchase equipment. M/s Jain & Jain was new party. purchase was after banking hours. Further, there was strike in clearing house making it impossible to make cheque payments for expeditious purchases. He pleaded that deduction should be allowed. ld. departmental representative relied on orders of authorities below. We find that purchase is bona fide and party is genuine. fact that there was strike in clearing house is also not denied. Just because certain other cheque payments have been made to other parties it does not mean that M/s Jain & Jain also could have been paid by cheque. No evidence has been led to doubt assessee's version. We accordingly delete addition of Rs. 9,354. appeal is partly allowed. *** UNITED TRADING CORPORATION v. INCOME TAX OFFICER