Dismissing the petition the Court held, that the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity to place on record evidence of execution of civil work (mass excavation and sand-filling), such as contracts for hiring excavation and other equipment, running accounts and final bills, proof of payment by the employer, contracts with sub-contractors, running accounts and final bills of sub-contractors, proof of payment to sub-contractors, and the like. Apart from producing work orders, photographs and the offer letter of employment of M, the assessee did not place any other evidence on record leading to the inference in the order that no proof of carrying out work was submitted by the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, there was no justification for exercising discretionary jurisdiction. The assessment order could not be quashed. Court also helld that a denial of the request for cross-examination does not automatically warrant interference under article 226 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, in cases where the assessee is able to provide some indication of real prejudice, by not being provided opportunity to cross-examine, interference would be justified while exercising discretionary jurisdiction, but not otherwise.  (AY.2016-17)