2016 (7) TMI 327 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus expenditure claimed - Held that - Even as per the petitioner-appellants, there was neither any proof of payment in terms of the voucher for the expenditure claimed as deduction nor such documents were produced at any point of time before the revisional authority. When the matter was heard before the learned Single Judge in writ proceedings, such documents were not produced nor are they produced in the present appeals. Under these circumstances, when proper legal evidence regarding proof of expenditure was not produced either before the Assessing Officer nor at subsequent stages of the revision petition or writ petitions before the learned Single Judge nor in the present appeals, we do not find that there would be any prejudice caused to the appellant on the alleged ground of breach of principles of natural justice nor any useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter as sought to be canvassed. The aforesaid in any case is coupled with the aspect that reasonable opportunity was given before the Assessing Officer but the petitioner-appellants did not avail of the same by producing the requisite voucher for the expenditure claimed. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed an error in not interfering with the matter when no legal evidence was produced for expenditure claimed. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of learned Single Judge in multiple writ petitions; Allegation of breach of principles of natural justice due to inadequate time for producing evidence; Failure to produce legal evidence of expenditure claimed; Request for remand based on non-observance of natural justice principles; Assessment order and revisional authority's decision challenged; Opportunity given by Assessing Officer questioned; Lack of proof of payment for expenses incurred; Failure to produce vouchers or documents before revisional authority; Dismissal of petitions by learned Single Judge upheld; Lack of legal evidence leading to dismissal of appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment involves multiple appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions. The common issue in all appeals is the alleged breach of principles of natural justice due to the Assessing Officer not granting sufficient time to produce documentary evidence of expenditure incurred by the appellants.

2. The appellants contended that the orders of assessment were in violation of natural justice principles as they were not given adequate time to provide proof of payment for expenses. They argued that the revisional authority failed to consider the non-observance of natural justice and dismissed the revision without remanding the matter.

3. The appellants claimed that with additional time, they could produce confirmation letters of payment recipients but lacked vouchers or addresses of the recipients. They sought the setting aside of assessment and revisional orders for re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

4. The revisional authority provided multiple opportunities for the appellants to submit documents, but they failed to do so. The appellants did not produce vouchers or proof of payment before the revisional authority, even though they acknowledged the lack of documentation in their submissions.

5. The learned Single Judge upheld the dismissal of the petitions, noting the absence of legal evidence for the claimed expenditure. The court found no prejudice caused by the alleged breach of natural justice and deemed remanding the matter futile due to the appellants' failure to produce necessary vouchers or documents.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision. The court concluded that without legal evidence of expenditure, there was no basis for interference in the appeals. The office objections raised in one of the appeals were also deemed unnecessary following the dismissal of all appeals.