While allowing the appeal of the Assessee, the Tribunal held that, when the telephones were used in the business premises of the assessee and the expenses were verifiable from the telephone bills the expenses could not be disallowed on mere suspicion. Similarly, the AO had not doubted the travelling expenditure incurred by the assessee and if the expenses were not found to be excessive having regard to the nature of business and volume of business of the assessee such an ad hoc disallowance on personal element was not justified. Further, in the case of building repair and maintenance expenses, the expenditure was incurred in cash and the assessee had produced only self-made vouchers and in the absence of supporting documentary evidence, the 10 per cent. disallowance of expenditure was justified. If office expenses were paid in cash and supported by the self-made vouchers. If the expenditure was not found to be excessive and it was inevitable for the business of the assessee petty expenses were incurred by the assessee on day-to-day basis in cash and without any vouchers. Once the expenditure was not found to be excessive having regard to the nature of business and volume of the business of the assessee the ad hoc disallowance was not justified. (AY.2012-13)