Documentary proof for expenditure claims must be examined on remand before rejecting genuineness of the deduction.

An assessee seeking deduction for levelling and fencing expenditure must be allowed to rely on documentary material already produced to support ledger entries and test the genuineness of the claim. Refusal to examine such documents, where a limited remand has already been given to substantiate the expenditure on the available record, would deny a fair opportunity to establish correct income. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered afresh by the assessing officer on the basis of the documents filed before the Tribunal, and the expenditure claim could not be rejected without examining that material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to a remand for consideration of the documents produced to corroborate the ledger entries and establish the genuineness of the expenditure claimed for levelling and fencing.

Analysis: The appeal concerned only the claim for expenditure on levelling and fencing. The earlier remand had afforded the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the claim on the basis of available material. The Court held that the assessee could support the ledger entries with documents already filed before the Tribunal, and that the refusal to examine those documents would unjustly deny an opportunity to establish the claim. Since tax is to be levied on correct income, the matter was required to be examined afresh by the assessing officer on the basis of the documents produced before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration of the documents and the genuineness of the expenditure claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee is given a limited opportunity on remand to substantiate an expenditure claim, the authority must examine the documentary material already produced to test the genuineness of the claim and cannot refuse consideration merely because no further elaborate evidentiary exercise is undertaken.

---