Ad hoc expense disallowance needs rejected books first; jurisdictional notice valid and unsecured-loan issue remanded for fresh hearing.

Notice under section 143(2) was treated as valid because the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment had issued it, so the jurisdictional objection failed. Additional evidence on the unsecured-loan issue was admitted under Rule 29, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after compliance with Rule 46A(3), including a remand report and hearing of both sides. Ad hoc disallowances of handling, transportation and other expenses were deleted because the books of account had not been rejected under section 145(3); estimation on suspicion or guesswork was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment proceedings were invalid for want of jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the addition on account of unsecured loan required admission of additional evidence and restoration for fresh adjudication. (iii) Whether ad hoc disallowances of handling and transportation expenses and other expenses could be sustained without rejection of books of account under section 145(3).

Issue (i): Whether the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment proceedings were invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdictional challenge was examined on the record and it was found that the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment had issued the notice under section 143(2). The statutory compliance was therefore treated as having been made, and the objection that the notice was not issued by the proper authority was not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice and the assessment proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition on account of unsecured loan required admission of additional evidence and restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 was allowed in the interest of substantive justice. The additional evidence was admitted and the issue was restored to the file of the first appellate authority for compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for obtaining a remand report and deciding the matter afresh after hearing both sides.

Conclusion: The unsecured loan issue was restored for de novo consideration and the relief was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether ad hoc disallowances of handling and transportation expenses and other expenses could be sustained without rejection of books of account under section 145(3).

Analysis: The addition was based on estimation after the books of account had not been rejected under section 145(3). The statutory scheme and the authorities relied upon made it clear that estimation of income on this basis requires rejection of the books first, and an arbitrary percentage disallowance cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or guesswork. The Tribunal therefore held that the estimated disallowances were not justified on the facts and law.

Conclusion: The disallowances were deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially on the merits of the estimated disallowances, while the jurisdictional objection failed and the unsecured-loan issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Estimated additions or disallowances cannot be made on a best-judgment basis unless the books of account are first rejected under section 145(3), and where additional evidence is necessary to decide a claim fairly, restoration for fresh consideration with opportunity to both sides is appropriate.

---