TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Rs. (a) Canteen expenses 33,37,000 (b) Sports activity expenses 66,15,000 (c) Sales and miscellaneous expenses 15,78,000 (d) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e basis of past records, disallowance should not have been made. However, it restricted the total disallowance to Rs. 10 lakhs. In support of the appeal it has been contended that when no adverse comments were given by the auditors in the tax audit (as the audit under section 44AB of the Act is commonly described), the authorities should not have resorted to disallowance of a portion of the claim. It was highlighted that the purpose of a tax audit is to do away with the requirement of making routine additions, testing the correctness of totals and corrections of totals and verifications of the purchases and sales and to see whether they are properly vouched or not. It is also submitted that when details were produced, merely on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax audit under section 44AB, the Income-tax Officer should not insist upon for production of the records or vouchers or details. Such a broad proposition cannot be laid down. No doubt sanctity is to be attached to the audit report given by a qualified chartered accountant. Merely because an audit report is available there is no fetter on the power of the Income-tax Officer to require the assessee to justify its claim with reference to the records, materials and evidence. Such a power is inherent in an Assessing Officer in the scheme of the Act. As indicated above, the scope of an appeal under section 260A is restricted to substantial questions of law. The expression "substantial question of law" has not been defined anywhere in the statu....