JUDGMENT 1. All these appeals filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") have arisen from common judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, therefore have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for appellant-revenue. 3. It is contended that liability of weaving charges shown by Assessee in different assessment years from 2004-05 to 2010-11 was found unsatisfactory inasmuch the persons to whom weaving charges were paid, their names and addresses were not mentioned in books of accounts and, therefore, Assessing Authority did not accept the same and instead added liability of 10 per cent further. However, he could not dispute that in the carpet manufacturing, weaving charges constitute most integral and comprehensive cost of manufacture and many a times the cost of manufacturing involves major component of weaving charges than the cost of material. Assessing Authority was also informed that weavers are mostly rural people, have no proper means, coming from poor background and that is why payments were made mostly in cash and since they are known to Assessee, therefore, their address etc. are not maintained. This is a normal practice in area. 4. Assessing Officer, however, has found one serious flaw to disallow the aforesaid charges observing that payment of less than 20,000/-, i.e., Rs. 19,990/- was shown so as to avoid TDS and liability of payment of tax under Section 40A of Act, 1961 and for that reason it has found it justified to disallow the aforesaid charge and instead to make addition of 10 per cent. 5. Even if statement of account disclosed by Assessee in this regard was not acceptable to Assessing Officer, we do not find any attempt on his part to find out as to what should have been appropriate weaving charges for the reasons that production has not been disputed and once carpets have been manufactured and production and their cost has been accepted, for all other purposes the same includes liability of weaving charges also and, therefore, it was incumbent upon Assessing Officer to work out fair and reasonable weaving charges, but no such attempt has been made and simply by disbelieving stand taken by Assessee, 10 per cent addition on weaving charges has been made in every disputed year of assessment in a mechanical way. This approach of Assessing Officer has been found illegal and without jurisdiction by Appellate Authorities inasmuch Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") has allowed the appeal of Assessee and Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by CIT(A). It has been clearly mentioned in the appellate order passed by CIT(A), which has been confirmed by Tribunal, that there was no provision under law shown to appellate authority by Revenue that such whimsical flat 10 per cent addition without any basis could have been made. 6. Considering the entire things, in our view there is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals. All the appeals are dismissed, accordingly.