GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

“11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.51,39,000/- and Rs.66,31,000/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A). It is an undisputed fact that during the course of search, certain documents were found and the assessee was called upon by the AO to explain the contents of the documents. Assessee furnished the explanations which were not found acceptable and, therefore, AO made the additions of the amounts reflected in those documents. Before us, Ld AR has placed on record the explanations that were submitted by the assessee before the authorities explaining the contents. The perusal of the same would reveal that assessee has inter alia given the details of the amount, received, the receipt number and the details of the amount which were refunded including the cheque number and date. The explanation and the details given by the assessee has not been shown to be untrue or contrary to the facts stated before the authorities. In such a situation, we are of the view that assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it. As far as the presumption u/s 292C is concerned, we are of the view that the provision of section 292C of the Act is only a deeming provision.. The presumption under section 292C of the Act is rebuttable presumption and the document has to be considered considering the totality of the facts of the case. The deeming provision cannot be applied mechanically ignoring the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that in the present case, no addition of the impugned amounts is called for. We, therefore, direct the deletion of the additions made by AO and upheld by CIT(A). Thus the grounds of the assessee is allowed.”