1982 (3) TMI 179 - AT - Income Tax

Interpretation of Section 69D: English documents not considered hundi transactions

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-C ruled in a case concerning the interpretation of Section 69D of the Income Tax Act that the documents executed by the ... - Issues:Interpretation of Section 69D - Whether the documents executed by the assessee qualify as hundi transactions under Section 69D of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-C involved the interpretation of Section 69D of the Income Tax Act in relation to certain transactions during the assessment year 1979-80. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had invoked Section 69D, which pertains to amounts borrowed or repaid on hundies otherwise than through account payee cheques, and added Rs. 15,000 to the returned income of the assessee. However, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC) held that the instruments in question were not hundies and subsequently deleted the addition made by the ITO, leading to the departmental appeal.The crux of the matter revolved around the nature of the transactions undertaken by the assessee. It was revealed that the assessee had borrowed sums of money from different parties and executed instruments on hundi paper, promising to pay back the amounts. The ITO added Rs. 15,000 to the income of the assessee, attributing Rs. 10,000 to receiving funds otherwise than through account payee cheques and Rs. 5,000 to a cash payment. The genuineness of these transactions was not in dispute; the sole issue was whether these documents could be classified as hundi transactions under Section 69D.The Departmental Representative argued that the documents being on hundi paper indicated the parties' understanding of them as hundies, emphasizing that even the appeal grounds proceeded on the basis of hundi transactions. Conversely, the assessee contended that the legal character of an instrument cannot be altered based on parties' conduct and that the documents did not meet the essential criteria to be classified as hundies. The absence of a specific definition of hundi in the Negotiable Instruments Act was highlighted, along with the commercial understanding that hundies are bills of exchange in vernacular, distinct from the English documents in question.The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents set by other benches regarding hundi transactions. The Madras Bench 'B' had previously ruled that only vernacular instruments could be termed hundies, while the Madras Bench 'A' further clarified that negotiability without endorsement is a key factor in determining hundies. Since the documents in this case were in English, lacked the necessary characteristics of hundies, and were only negotiable by endorsement, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision that Section 69D could not be applied. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed, affirming the view that the documents did not qualify as hundi transactions under the Income Tax Act.