2025 (6) TMI 1031 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s 69D - allegation of assessee taken cash loan and Hundi - whether document must be Hundi? - HELD THAT - 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 Hundi and therefore the presumption u/s 69D of the Act would not be available to the revenue. In this regard we placed reliance upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Niwas 2008 (1) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI Instrument as placed on record in the paper book and also scanned in the above portion of this order are in English language and are all bilateral and not tripartite. In the facts and circumstances of the case as per the precedent as above it cannot be treated as Hundi. Hence the disallowance made u/s 69D of the Act is unsustainable. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

- Whether the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- under section 69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on account of alleged cash loan taken on hundi was justified, given the absence of corroborative evidence regarding receipt, utilization, and the nature of the seized documents;

- Whether the addition of interest on the alleged cash loans under section 69C of the Act was valid, especially considering the absence of a show cause notice;

- Whether the reliance by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on inquiries conducted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) without providing the investigation report to the assessee violated principles of natural justice;

- Whether the re-opening of assessment was valid or vitiated due to borrowed satisfaction and lack of application of mind;

- Whether the seized document was a valid hundi or merely a promissory note indicating a proposed borrowal that did not materialize, thus rendering the addition under section 69D unsustainable;

- Whether the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act was justified;

- Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was proper;

All these grounds were interrelated and primarily challenged the additions and penalties upheld by the CIT(A) based on the nature of the documents seized and the procedures followed.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Addition under Section 69D of the Act on Account of Alleged Hundi Loan

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69D of the Income Tax Act deals with the treatment of loans secured by hundi documents. The deeming provision applies only if the document qualifies as a hundi, which is traditionally a negotiable instrument written in an oriental language and involves a tripartite transaction. The Indian Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, does not govern hundis, which are subject to local usage. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Dexan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (1995) and Ravi B Jaising vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4592/MUM/2017), which elaborate on the characteristics of hundi instruments. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Niwas (2008) emphasized that the substance of the document and the true nature of the transaction must be examined rather than its form or title.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the seized document and found it to be in English and bilateral in nature, naming only two parties, unlike a traditional hundi which is typically tripartite and in an oriental language. The document was identified as a promissory note rather than a hundi. The Tribunal held that the deeming provision under section 69D applies only when the document qualifies as a hundi. Since the essential ingredients of a hundi were absent, the presumption under section 69D could not be invoked.

Key Evidence and Findings: The document seized during the search and seizure operation was examined closely. It was found to be a bilateral instrument in English, lacking the tripartite nature and oriental language characteristics of a hundi. The document was also described as a "dumb document," indicating a proposed borrowal that did not materialize.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles from the cited precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the document could not be treated as a hundi. Consequently, the addition made under section 69D was held to be unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the document was a hundi and the addition was justified. The assessee argued that the document was not a hundi but a promissory note and that there was no evidence of actual receipt or utilization of the alleged cash loan. The Tribunal favored the assessee's contention based on the nature of the document and the absence of corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the addition under section 69D, holding that the document was not a hundi and the addition was therefore unsustainable.

Issue 2: Addition of Interest under Section 69C without Show Cause Notice

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 69C of the Act deals with interest on unexplained cash credits. Generally, principles of natural justice require that a show cause notice be issued before making additions or levying interest.

Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition of interest without issuing any show cause notice to the assessee. This procedural lapse was considered significant.

Application to Facts: Since the AO failed to issue a show cause notice before making the addition of interest, the Tribunal found the addition improper.

Conclusion: The addition of interest under section 69C was not upheld due to the absence of procedural compliance.

Issue 3 & 4: Reliance on Investigation Report and Violation of Natural Justice

Legal Principles: The principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee must be given an opportunity to examine and respond to adverse information or reports relied upon by the revenue authorities.

Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld additions based on inquiries and reports made by the DDIT (Inv), Thane, but the investigation report was not supplied to the assessee. This non-disclosure was held to be a violation of natural justice and fair play.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found the impugned order illegal and bad in law on this ground.

Issue 5: Validity of Re-opening of Assessment

Legal Framework: Re-opening of assessment under section 148 requires the Assessing Officer to have a valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, supported by application of mind and independent satisfaction.

Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the re-opening was based on borrowed satisfaction without application of mind by the AO, rendering the re-opening invalid.

Conclusion: The re-opening was held to be bad in law.

Issue 6: Nature of Seized Document as Promissory Note

Legal Reasoning: The seized document was a promissory note in original, naming only two parties, indicative of a proposed borrowal which did not materialize. This characterization was crucial in negating the applicability of section 69D.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69D was unsustainable on this basis.

Issue 7: Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C

Legal Framework: Sections 234B and 234C impose interest for defaults in advance tax payments. The validity depends on the correctness of the underlying tax demand.

Court's Reasoning: Since the additions themselves were set aside, the levy of interest under these sections was also held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The interest levied under sections 234B and 234C was not upheld.

Issue 8: Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

Legal Principles: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is contingent upon the correctness of the assessment order and the existence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Court's Reasoning: Since the additions were deleted, the foundation for penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustained.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is captured in the following verbatim excerpt:

"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 and Ravi B Jaising Vs. ACIT."

Further, the Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's observation:

"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... 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."

Core principles established include:

• The deeming provision under section 69D applies strictly to hundi loans, which must satisfy traditional characteristics of hundi instruments.
• The substance of the document and the nature of the transaction override the mere nomenclature or form.
• Procedural fairness and natural justice require disclosure of adverse reports and issuance of show cause notices before making additions or levying interest.
• Re-opening of assessment must be based on independent application of mind and valid reasons, not borrowed satisfaction.
• Penalties and interest levied are contingent on the validity of the underlying additions.

Final determinations on each issue were in favor of the assessee, resulting in the deletion of the additions under section 69D and related interest and penalty charges. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.