Business expenditure disallowance fails when primary records support the claim and third-party non-response alone is relied on.

ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of sales promotion expenses could not be sustained where the assessee had produced invoices, ledger details, bank payment records and recipient tax-registration particulars. The addition was based mainly on non-response to notices and failure to produce some parties, without any finding that the expenditure was excessive, bogus or unsupported by primary evidence. As no summons were issued under section 131 and the appellate authority did not independently examine the record, the disallowance rested on conjecture rather than reasoned verification. The addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disallowance of sales promotion expenses and the resulting addition to income were sustainable when the assessee produced invoices, bank payment records, and other supporting material, but the Assessing Officer relied mainly on non-response to notices and non-production of parties.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished invoices, ledger details, bank-channel payments, and tax-registration particulars of the recipients. The disallowance was founded essentially on non-response to notices issued to some parties and the assessee's inability to produce them, without any finding that the expenditure was excessive, bogus, or unsupported by primary records. No summons were issued under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the appellate order merely echoed the assessment findings without independent examination of the evidentiary record. In these circumstances, the addition was held to rest on conjecture rather than a proper appreciation of the material on record.

Conclusion: The disallowance of sales promotion expenses was unsustainable and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance of business expenditure cannot be sustained merely because third parties do not respond to notices or are not produced, where primary documentary evidence supports the claim and the revenue authority does not make an independent, reasoned examination of genuineness.

---