JUDGMENT B.V. Nagarathna, J.— This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I. T. A. No. 670/Bang/2000, dated May 17, 2004. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-assesses who is carrying on business as stevedoring, clearing and forwarding agents and is being assessed in the status of a firm. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee had filed return of income which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and with respect to profit and loss account a sum of Rs. 32,32,601 was debited as stevedoring charges. On verifying these expenses claimed, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had produced certain self-made vouchers endorsed by the assessee's own employees and that these were other than the regular salary and other allowances which itself was taxable under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that in the absence of proper vouchers expenses claimed by the assessee could not be allowed in respect of four items, viz., (Rs.) (a) Incentive paid to dock workers 11,07,568 (b) Casual labour charges 1,13,358 (c) Supervisory payments 64,467 (d) Extra gang charges 31,850 -------------- Total 13,17,243 -------------- and consequently a sum of Rs. 13,17,243 was disallowed by order dated March 15, 1999. 3. Being aggrieved by this order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore, who by his order dated July 31, 2000, rejected the appeal of the assessee. Against the said order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. While discussing the nature of the payments made, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is against the said order that this appeal has been filed on various substantial questions of law. When this appeal was admitted since no substantial questions of law were formulated, after hearing, in our view, the only substantial question of law which arises is whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that it was a burden on the Assessing Officer to verify the reasonableness of expenditure before disallowing the claim made during the current year when no such allowances had been made by the Assessing Officer during the earlier assessment year. 4. 4. We have heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Parthasarathi, counsel for the respondent-assessee. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the assessee is in clearing and forwarding business and the amount that is sought to be claimed by way of deduction is huge and, therefore, necessary documents and details with regard to the said deductions ought to have been produced by the assessee. He further submits that as per the Mangalore Port Trust Regulations, all payments have to be made through cheques through the Port Trust and that the assessee had directly made payments to the dock workers, casual labourers and gangmen and the same were not in the regular course of business and hence the deduction cannot be claimed in respect of the said amounts. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the assessee that by an oral understanding the assessee had with the labour union and stevedoring agents, a sum of Rs. 1.60 per metric ton for granite handling and Rs. 2 per metric ton for wheat handling was to be paid depending upon the quantity of goods that were being handled by the labourers and, therefore, considering the fact that this amount was paid to hundreds of persons during the course of business and considering that the amount would also have been of lesser sum in respect of the individual concerned, it would be impossible to produce receipts from the persons to whom payments had been made and also to make payments by way of cheques to the workers. He further submits that considering the nature of business of the assessee and the fact that in order to have a good working relationship with the dock and port workers, such an arrangement had been made and, therefore, it has to be considered as a business expenditure and deduction ought to be granted. 7. He further submits that considering the nature of business of the assessee and the fact that in order to have a good working relationship with the dock and port workers, such an arrangement had been made and, therefore, it has to be considered as a business expenditure and deduction ought to be granted. 7. We have perused the orders passed by the authorities below and taking into consideration the assessee's business and the prevailing practice in the trade, whereby payments have to be made by the firms such as the assessee in order to ensure that work of handling goods are done within a reasonable time and to handle emergency operations of cargo handling beyond the working hours, such payments are made either through labour or workers' union, cannot be considered to be either prohibited by law and further the assessee cannot be expected to take the receipt from individual workers or make payment by way of cheques. In our opinion, the payment is clearly for business consideration and cannot be considered to be illegal in nature and have been incurred in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, the said amount ought to be allowed as deduction by way of business expenditure. 8. Hence, due to the aforesaid reasons, we answer the substantial question of law against the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.