9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant material constituting legal evidence for the claim of expenditure incurred by the appellants-petitioners, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the fin ding of the authorities and the petitions were rejected. 6. We have heard Ms. Jinitha Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals and Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals upon the advance copy. 7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that as the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient time to the appellants to produce the documentary evidence as a result, the appellants could not produce the requisite document as a proof of payment for the expenses incurred and hence the orders of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the matter was posted before the Assessing Officer on 03.09.20 13, 06.09.2013 and 10.03.2014. If the aforesaid time gap is considered, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not given by the Assessing Officer. 12. Apart from the above, if the petitioners- appellants could not avail the opportunity, they could have very well produced the document of voucher as a proof of payment before the revisional authority when the grievance was made before the revisional authority to the effect that the Assessing Officer did not give sufficient opportunity. But the petitioner-appellant did not produce any document before revisional authority. 13. On the contrary, before the Assessing Officer, the petitioners-appellants in the letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. 15. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
