Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A reading of Section 132(4A). reveals that the words used therein are "may be presumed". It is thus clear that the drawing of presumption in such cases depends upon particular facts and circumstances of each case. The officer is not justified to draw such presumption in all cases without application of mind judiciously to the facts of a particular case. Even if such presumption is drawn against an. assessee the same is rebuttable and the person against whom such presumption is drawn is free to lead evidence to rebut such presumption and when that is done, the officer or authority shall consider all the evidence and facts judiciously, Now the question is what quantum of evidence is required to rebut such presumption in a given case or set of facts ? In our opinion, no hard or fast rule can be laid down nor has been laid down by any Courts. The evidence for rebutting presumption may be either direct or indirect or may be both. And in some cases perhaps even the statement of the assessee may be enough to rebut such presumption drawn by the officer or authority.. To say so we draw support 'from the "decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Addl CIT v. Thahmyammal Balchand .... Apparently no cause of action can lie between the assessee and Naihati Jute Mills Co. on the basis of such unsigned MoU and, therefore, there is no obligation or liability on the part of the company to pay to the assessee all those amounts mentioned in the unsigned MoU nor the assessee is entitled to claim from the company all those amounts mentioned in that unsigned MoU. We are also inclined to agree with the assessee's counsel that when no income has resulted at all on the basis of unsigned MoU then there is neither accrual nor receipt of income. Under the provisions of the IT Act it is the real income which has to be taxed and not hypothetical income. In this; connection we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. . The Supreme Court has also laid down in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT that the concept of real income its certainly applicable in judging whether there has been income or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO has clearly stated that it would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax an assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him, Apart from the unsigned MoU the AQ has not led any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the assessee earned or received the amounts mentioned in the said unsigned MoU. As held by us earlier the assessee has rebutted the presumption by way of ample evidence which is on record.... We are, therefore, of the view that the CIT(A) was perfectly justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,93,000 made by the AO on the basis of unsigned MoU, We, therefore, affirm the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard.