1 itxa5248-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5248 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane-1 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. R.M. Enterprises ..Respondent. Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar with Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Four questions of law (reframed) are raised by the revenue in this appeal, which read thus :- 1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on the basis of the statement made by partner Shri Rafiq Abhid Patel during the course of survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.35,55,235/- made by the assessing officer on the basis of the statement made by partner Shri Rafiq Abhid Patel during the course of survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards suppression of 2 itxa5248-10 WIP of Mehwish Tower ? 3) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,73,939/- made by the assessing officer on the basis of the statement made by partner Shri Rafiq Abhid Patel during the course of survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the excess land cost debited by the assessee in respect of Mehwish Tower ? 4) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in restricting the disallowance out of labour charges, general expenses of Rs.20,000/- as disallowance were made by the assessing officer on the basis that the voucher were self made and, therefore, not verifiable and some of the voucher were not available ? 2. As regards the first three questions are concerned, the additions of Rs.5,00,000/, Rs.35,55,235/- and Rs.3,73,939/- made by the assessing officer on the basis of the statement made by the partner of the assessee firm, namely Mr. Rafiq Abhid Patel have been deleted by the ITAT on the ground that the statement made by the partner was a qualified statement and not an unqualified statement admitting liability. Counsel for the revenue fairly states that apart from the qualified statement made by the partner which is retracted, there is no corroborative evidence to sustain the additions made by the assessing officer. In these circumstances, the deletion of the additions made by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, question Nos.1 to 3 cannot be entertained. 3. As regards the fourth question is concerned, in the assessment year in question the assessing officer had disallowed the 3 itxa5248-10 labour charges and general expenses claimed by the assessee and made addition to the extent of Rs.40,000/- on ad-hoc basis. The CIT(A) had partly sustained the additions made by the assessing officer. The ITAT has deleted the balance disallowance on the ground that without assigning any specific reasons, the assessing officer was not justified in making ad-hoc disallowances. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the reasoning given by the ITAT. Accordingly, the fourth question cannot be entertained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)