Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 292C: The presumption that documents found during search correctly reflect the facts is a ‘discretionary presumption’ & not a ‘compulsory presumption’. The presumption does not apply if the documents are inchoate

(i) The reliance is placed on Section 292C of the Act which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 1 October 1975 by the appellant to submit that the documents found during the course of search are presumed to correctly reflect the facts. It is on the basis of the documents found during the course of search that the Assessing Officer had classified them into three different categories indicating the alleged heads of expenditure. This evidence is submitted in view of the retrospective amendment of the Act by Section 292C of the Act be accepted and the onus to establish that the expenditure referred to in documents is not correct is on the revenue.

(ii) In the present facts, we find that the documents found during the course of the search are inchoate. It does not indicate the person to whom the payment has been made, the address of the recipient, the person by whom the payment is made and the documents itself indicates that it is prepared for either seeking of funds or reimbursement of funds. Therefore even if the presumption is to be applied and the documents are accepted as true, it would not lead to the conclusion that payments have been made in cash so as to claim the expenditure. Thus no purpose would be served in remanding the issue to the Tribunal. Further Section 292 of the Act provides that where any documents are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act, then it may be presumed in any proceedings under this Act that the contents of such documents are true and correct. It will be noted that the section uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption. Therefore this presumption has to be invoked by the authorities passing an order under the Act particularly when the invocation of such presumption is discretionary on the authorities. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee sought to explain the fact that these expenses on which the deduction is claimed had in fact been incurred. This was in response to the show cause notice issued to the appellant. Thereafter Explanation offered by the appellant was not found satisfactory on the basis of the evidence available before the authorities and the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the amendment to Section 292C of the Act even though with retrospective effect would not bring about any material change in the conclusion arrived at upon the existing facts.

One comment on “Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
  1. Problem is IT sections have to be modified as per high court decisions not appealed against as final so too the SC judgements,once done,naturally the law makers would not waste the executive time as also the tax payers.

    so it is high time, the constitutional courts in their orders make observations like obiter dicta that the government need to correct the relevant sections on which court already delivered opinions, that way leviathan could be made to move meaningfully else meaningless appeals and petitions flood the courts.

    it is settled when the government fails in its right duty to deliver right things to citizens in time, the citizens could move tort actions on governments too.

    government need to be afraid of citizens too that is right checks and balances mechanism.

    courts can also warn the governments by their observations under obiter dicta that idea came from US SC decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*