ORDER SHEET ITA NO.407 OF 2005 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE AJOY KUMAR SAHA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(2) BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 5th May, 2015. MR.J.P.KHAITAN,SR.ADVOCATE,PRANIT BAG, MR.C.S.DAS, ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT MS.SMITA DAS DE,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Court : following questions were formulated at time when appeal was admitted. i) Whether disallowance of expenses under head Trip expenses, Vehicle maintenance expenses and Tyre resoling expenses on estimate and without any material and comparable basis are lawful, justified and not perverse ? 2 ii) Whether finding of Tribunal that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed expenses on purely ad-hoc basis without any valid reason is sustainable in law? iii) Whether Appellate Tribunal is justified and competent to reject cross appeal of assessee merely because Revenue s appeal is allowed ? appeal is directed against order dated 8th June, 2005 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02. Assessing Officer had disallowed certain expenditures because he was of view that documentary evidence adduced by assessee was not enough. In appeal preferred by assessee, C.I.T (Appeals) reconsidered matter and reduced amount of disallowance for reasons indicated by him. Aggrieved Revenue preferred appeal before Tribunal. assessee also filed cross objection. Tribunal allowed appeal preferred by Revenue on ground that views expressed by C.I.T.(Appeals) in allowing expenditures were on ad hoc basis. Mr.Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for appellant/assessee submitted that there is no such basis known as ad hoc basis for purpose of reducing amount of disallowance. expression ad hoc means, as would appear from Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as follows; 3 ad hoc adj. & adv. formed, arranged, or done for particular purpose only Mr.Khaitan submitted that if meaning of word ad hoc is to be taken as something done for particular purpose then purpose sought to be achieved in this case was to give some benefit to assessee on basis of appreciation of evidence which C.I.T(A) was entitled to do. There is nothing wrong in that and learned Tribunal interfered with order passed by CIT (A) for no reason whatsoever. He contended that order cannot be sustained. He also submitted that cross objection filed by assessee was dismissed in most cavalier manner without even recording submissions of assessee. He concluded by saying that order is altogether bad and should be set aside. Ms. Das (De), learned Advocate appearing for Revenue, has not seriously disputed submissions advanced by Mr. Khaitan. Therefore, we are of opinion that CIT (A) had passed order on basis of reappreciation of evidence which he was entitled to do. learned Tribunal was unable to pinpoint any mistake committed by CIT (A). Therefore, interference does not appear to be in accordance with law. questions formulated are all questions of fact which need not be answered. We are satisfied that 4 order of Tribunal cannot be sustained which is set aside and order of CIT(A) is restored. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb/cs. Ajoy Kumar Saha v. Income-tax Officer Ward 30(2)