JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the Revenue involves the question of disallowance of certain expenses of an engineering concern for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.3,65,37,340/- on account of job work, site expenses and transportation charges as deductible expenses. The assessing officer, however, restricted the claim to 70% of the aforesaid sum. The assessing officer found:- “6.2. In the P & L account, the assessee claimed expenses on job work of Rs.1,48,55,401/- out of which the assessee has shown outstanding liability of Rs.1,22,29,153/-. The A/R was asked to furnish the details of such outstanding liabilities of job work. On examination of the details furnished it is seen that these expenses are mainly related to consumables, food, lodging etc for different customer sites. The A/R was asked to produce the supporting bills and vouchers of the said expenses. The A/R produced some bills and vouchers. On verification of those vouchers it is found that roughly 30% of the outstanding expenses are properly vouched. Regarding the balance 70% expenses, neither the A/R could produce bills and vouchers nor filed any satisfactory explanation.” On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner held:- “Appeal on ground no.3 is against the disallowance of Rs.23968850/- being the 70% of expenses from job work site expenses and transportation charges. The A.O. found that the assessee has claimed Rs.3,65,37,340/- as outstanding liability on job work, site expenses transportation charges. The A.O. asked for supporting documents for such expenses. Further, the A.O. has given his finding that since 30% of the outstanding expenses are properly vouched and details filed for 70% of expenses were not satisfactorily explained, therefore, the A.O. disallowed 70% of such not fully explained provision for expenses. During the appellate proceeding the A.R. has submitted that the assessee has to incur various expenses at various sites by taking casual labour and deploying local resources. The A.R. has further submitted that it may not be possible all the time to get proper bills from such casual labourers. I have considered the A.O’s finding and the submission made by the A.R.. I agree with the A.Os finding that all the expenses are not duly supported by proper details and documents. The A.R. has further submitted that it may not be possible all the time to get proper bills from such casual labourers. I have considered the A.O’s finding and the submission made by the A.R.. I agree with the A.Os finding that all the expenses are not duly supported by proper details and documents. But at the same time A.R’s submission cannot be ignored that when the assessee is getting work done by casual labourers it may not be possible all the time to get paka receipt from them. Keeping in view the finding of the A.O. and the assessee’s submission I find that disallowance of 70% of not properly vouched expenses is excessive in nature. In fact, this disallowance is on the basis of estimate basis only. In my opinion such disallowances should be restricted to 10% instead of 70%. Thus, assessee’s appeal on this ground is partly allowed.” 2. The Tribunal sustained the Commissioner’s order, against which the Revenue has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Main argument of Ms. Das De, learned counsel for the Revenue is that there is no basis for further lowering the allowable expenditure and thereby restricting the disallowance to 10% by the Commissioner. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, we admit the appeal on the following ground, which in our opinion involves substantial question of law:- 4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal was perverse and without any material to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the expenses of Rs.2,33,93,067/-debited to the profit and loss account ? 5. We have gone through the assessment order, the decision of the Commissioner and that of Tribunal. We do not find any material on the basis of which the Commissioner had restricted the disallowance to 10%, overriding the assessing officer’s computation. The Tribunal, we find, has also not addressed this issue. This exercise appears to have been done on the basis of guesswork. We accordingly set aside the decision of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh on this issue. The assessee, however, shall be entitled to produce further documents before the Tribunal justifying its claim. As the assessment year involved is 2009-10, we request the Tribunal to conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of communication of this decision. 6. The assessee, however, shall be entitled to produce further documents before the Tribunal justifying its claim. As the assessment year involved is 2009-10, we request the Tribunal to conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date of communication of this decision. 6. The appeal and the connected application are allowed in the above terms.