2016 (7) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan ORDER Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 143(3) of the Act and to redo the assessment after verifying the details of the cheques, through which, payments have been made, bank statements and ledger copies, which came into possession of the petitioner after the assessment was completed. This review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly 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 Officer gave a personal hearing to the petitioner, before whom, the petitioner produced all the vouchers and bank details, etc, to establish the gen....