ORDER
Hari Om Maratha, J.M.
1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the Department pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95 filed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 6th March, 1998.
2. The Department has raised two issues. The first issue pertains to reduction of disallowance of expenditure on fuel from Rs. 1,31,870 to Rs. 21,870.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the job work of dyeing of cloths. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,31,870 out of expenditure on wood and fuel on the ground that the same was excessive. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 21,870 only.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the evidence on record.
5. The assessee had achieved higher job receipts in the relevant previous year as compared to the previous years. The GP was also higher. Comparative details of job receipts, GP and GP rate for relevant years are as under:
Asst. yr. Dyeingjob receipt Gross profit GP rate 1992-93 Rs. 15,30,470 1,80,462 11.80% 1993-94 Rs. 18,73,121 1,93,530 10.33% 1994-95 Rs. 19,69,099 2,37,819 12.08%
6. It is also undisputed that the assessee had submitted complete details of wood and fuel expenses. It cannot be denied either that the expenditure on wood and fuel depends upon the quality of dyeing and also quality of colours and chemicals used therein. When the assessee had submitted complete details of expenditure on wood and fuel in relation to job receipts along with comparative rates of wood for the last five years and the rates of job charges particularly when the AO has not found any defects in the details and reasoning as submitted by the assessee, the addition in our opinion is uncalled for so far as it is disputed. In the past, GP rate and consumption of fuel as declared by the assessee has been accepted by the Revenue and no such disallowances were made. Even if the books are rejected and estimate is done, the past history is the best guide for estimation of the income for that purpose. Since the assessee is not in appeal, so we do not find infirmity in the order of the learned CIT{A) and consequently, we confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the Department on this ground.
7. The next issue pertains to the deletion of disallowance out of salary of Rs. 62,000.
8. The assessee claimed total expenditure on salary and wages at Rs, 1,42,650 in relevant previous years and in the immediately preceding year. This expenditure was Rs. 1,42,650 in the relevant previous years and, in the immediately preceding year this expenditure was Rs. 1,52,683. Thus, according to the assessee, the expenditure had come down inspite of increase in job receipts and so there is no scope for disallowance. The AO doubted the genuineness of the number of persons employed and made additions. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted these additions.
9. Before us, the same arguments have been reiterated by both the rival representatives.
10. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that when there was no disallowance in the past on such salary payments, the disallowance based on ad hocism cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. When the salary expenditure has come out in spite of increase in job receipts in the previous year, then on that count also the claim of the assessee is justified.
11. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.