TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 to the returned income. The AAC held that the instruments are not hundies and, therefore, deleted the addition. Hence, the departmental appeal. 2. The assessee had borrowed from M/s Ramesh Co., by cheque on 17th May, 1978 a sum of Rs. 10,000. The assessee then executed in English two instruments for Rs. 5,000 each on the Government hundi paper promising to pay Rs. 5,000 on each instrument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... language, which it is not. So in his view, s. 69D cannot be applied. Hence the departmental appeal. 3. The Deptl. Rep. argued that the document is written on hundi paper and that, therefore, the parties have understood and treated it as hundi transactions and that, even the grounds of appeal before the AAC proceeded on the basis that the transactions were hundi transactions. The assessee argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without endorsement. It was pointed out that the Central Board which administers IT Act has understood hundies as instruments which have negotiability without endorsement and that these documents in question are negotiable instruments only by endorsement because these are all promissory notes payable to order and that the Board has understood that s. 69D applies only to instruments which are negot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Second ITO, Tuticorin vs. M/s Grahalakshmi Co. in ITA No. 377 (Mds)/81 (asst. yr. 1978-79) to which one of us, the Vice President was a party, has added one more reason, that s. 69D applies only to instruments which are negotiable without endorsement and that negotiability is the principal test to find out whether a document is a hundi or not, in these transactions the documents are in Engli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
