AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the LD. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 69D of the Income tax Act ("the Act") on account of alleged cash loan taken on hundi, without any corroborative evidence regarding receipt of alleged cash, its utilization and without dealing with the contention of the appellant that the seized documents were not hundis. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of interest on the alleged cash loans u/s 69C of the Act for the part period despite the fact that the Assessing Off icer made the addition without is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a proposed borrowal which did not materialize thereby making it 'dumb document'. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the seized document at page No. 61 of bundle no 4, which was considered as Hundi by the Ld.AO is scanned as under: 6. On scrutinizing the same, we are of the view that the primary requirement for invoking the deeming provision of section 69D of the Act is that the document must be Hundi and it is only thereafter that the deeming provision comes into play as explained in the cases of CIT Vs Dexan pharmaceuticals Private Limited, 1995 214 ITR, 576(AP), & Ravi B Jaising Vs. ACIT in ITA no 4592/MUM/2017 7. In our consider view, the document in question is not a Hundi because it represented a bilateral transaction and it was also not on the Hundi paper. In the absence of those vital ingredients, the document could not be described as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh it may not he wholly accurate to say that all the instruments which are not drawn in vernacular cannot he Hundis, there is no doubt whatsoever that the absence of oriental language in the document coupled with the fact that the transaction is only bilateral and not tripartite is conclusive to show that the instrument though titled as Hundi was not really a Hundi transaction The transactions are very much on the lines of promissory note where it is a bilateral transaction. It is not the form but the substance of the document and the true transaction which is really to be seen. A plain reading of s. 69D of the Act shows that it can be brought into service only when the loan transaction is of Hundi loan. It may also be pointed out incident....