Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 312 - AT - Income TaxAdditions made on the basis of loose papers found and impounded from the premises of the assessee - Presumption u/s 292C - CIT(A) reduced the addition giving partial relief to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The text of the seized documents based upon which the addition has been made has been reproduced in the above part of this order. The document has clearly described that the sum was received by the assessee as "unsecured interest-free loan" against the development of project. namely, "First India Place". There is no material on record to, suggest that the said amount received by the assessee in any way represented the income of the assessee. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that the source stated in the document as "interest-free loan" is in any way false or incorrect. Sec. 292C has been inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 1st Oct., 1975. It presumes that in a case of search or survey wherein any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing is found in the possession or control of any person, then, it will be presumed that such books of account, etc. belong to such person and its contents are true, there is a presumption of signature and stamping. In this manner, according to the facts of the present case, a presumption has been raised in respect of correctness of the document impounded in the course of search. The documents found and impounded during the course of search describe the nature of amount as "unsecured interest-free loan" and seized document does not mention that the said amount represented the income of the assessee. It may also be mentioned that as per well established law as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Ors. vs. CIT[1977 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. Once the assessee comes within the letter of law he must be taxed. Ld DR has relied upon the provisions of s. 292C which raise a presumption/legal fiction. The presumption as envisaged in s. 292C is limited to the correctness of the documents found at the time of search or survey, but that presumption has not been extended by the statute to be presumed to be the income of the assessee. If it is so, then unless some evidence/material is brought on record by the Revenue to say that what is stated in the seized document is not correct, state of affairs, the state of affairs stated in the impounded document has to be presumed to be true. It has already been observed that there is no material/evidence on record to suggest alleged excess payment received by the assessee from Raja Singh Sethi was in any way in the shape of income and not an unsecured interest-free loan. Therefore also, the argument of ld DR that on the basis of s. 292C, the action of the AO should be upheld, cannot be accepted. Therefore, we find no material to interfere in the decision arrived at by the CIT(A) vide which impugned addition has been deleted. As we have upheld the order of CIT(A), we do not consider it necessary to go into the other aspect which has been argued by ld AR regarding invalidity of assessment proceedings on the basis of "satisfaction" based on the issuance of notice u/s. 158BD, as the same will be of academic interest only. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|