Business expenditure disallowance limited where records supported core claims, but referral-fee irregularities justified only a partial cut.

Business expenditure incurred by a corporate insurance agent was examined on a documentary and business-practice basis. Certified data purchase and salary, wages and bonus were allowed because the records, vouchers and surrounding material supported the claim and no specific defect was shown. Referral-fee expenditure was only partly accepted because some vouchers were self-made, certain recipients were not produced and enquiries revealed inconsistencies, but the overall business pattern did not justify a large ad hoc rejection. The disallowance on referral fee was therefore confined to 5 per cent, with the balance deleted, reflecting the principle that business spending must be judged from the businessman's perspective and not by arbitrary estimates.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance made out of certified data purchase and salary, wages and bonus was sustainable; (ii) whether the disallowance out of referral fee was justified in full; and (iii) what relief, if any, was to be granted on the facts of the business of a corporate insurance agent.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance made out of certified data purchase and salary, wages and bonus was sustainable.

Analysis: The expenses were incurred in the course of an insurance-agency business and were supported by books, vouchers, and surrounding material. The Revenue did not point out specific defects in the data purchase or salary records, nor could it displace the assessee's explanation that the expenditure was incurred to procure and promote insurance business. The businessman's judgment in incurring such expenditure could not be substituted by the Revenue's view in the absence of concrete adverse material.

Conclusion: The disallowance out of certified data purchase and salary, wages and bonus was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance out of referral fee was justified in full.

Analysis: The referral-fee claim was not free from doubt because some vouchers were self-made, some recipients were not produced, several notices and summons were unserved, and the enquiries revealed inconsistencies in acknowledgments and confirmations. At the same time, the assessee maintained substantial documentary material and the overall business history showed that the expenditure level was broadly consistent with earlier and later years. The ad hoc disallowance of 30 per cent was found excessive in the circumstances, but some disallowance was warranted because the claim was not fully free from irregularity.

Conclusion: The referral-fee disallowance was restricted to 5 per cent, and the balance disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What relief, if any, was to be granted on the facts of the business of a corporate insurance agent.

Analysis: The assessee was engaged in procuring insurance business on commission basis and had to incur expenditure to generate leads, collect information, and mobilize field staff. The expenditure pattern in earlier and later years supported the conclusion that the assessee had not inflated the entire claim in a manner warranting wholesale rejection.

Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially, with deletion of the disallowance on certified data purchase and salary and partial sustenance of only a 5 per cent disallowance on referral fee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was modified by deleting the major disallowances and confining interference to a limited portion of the referral-fee claim, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Business expenditure must be judged from the point of view of the businessman, and an ad hoc disallowance cannot be sustained without specific defects or adverse material, though a limited disallowance may be made where the claim is only partly substantiated.

---