9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o such a report of the officer dated 4.8.2015 in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. However, the first respondent has not stated anything as to what was the report submitted by the Assessing Officer and as to how it is relevant or not relevant to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition. However, the first respondent proceeded solely on the basis as if the petitioner is estopped from raising such a contention. Thus in view, the reason assigned by the first respondent for rejecting the review petition is not tenable for the simple reason that the petitioner had initially accepted for disallowance, which cannot be a ground to put against the petitioner, since, subsequently i.e. 17.3.2014, the petitioner made a request to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the petitioner did not produce vouchers to the extent of ₹ 63,88,614/- whereas they had produced vouchers for the remaining amount claimed as deduction. 4. During the personal hearing on 14.3.2014, the second respondent had opined that the petitioner had agreed for the disallowance of the claim for deduction. 5. However, on the subsequent date i.e 17.3.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent stating that during the hearing on 14.3.2014, the second respondent himself had raised a query pointing out the vouchers not produced and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why this expenditure should not be disallowed. In this regard, the petitioner stated that they shifted their office to Shak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how it is relevant or not relevant to the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition. However, the first respondent proceeded solely on the basis as if the petitioner is estopped from raising such a contention. 9. In my view, the reason assigned by the first respondent for rejecting the review petition is not tenable for the simple reason that the petitioner had initially accepted for disallowance, which cannot be a ground to put against the petitioner, since, subsequently i.e. 17.3.2014, the petitioner made a request to the Assessing Officer to consider other documents and allow deduction claimed as expenditure. 10. In fact, when the first respondent called for the report from the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
