RAVI B. JAISING, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1), MUMBAI

ITSSA 4592/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3242 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H N SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH M PATEL
• Keywords: Block assessment; Retraction
• Section: 69; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM IT (SS) NO. 4592 /MUM/ 2017 ( BLOCK PERIOD: 1989 - 1999 ) SHRI RAVI B. JAISING 20/21B, CHAND TERRACES, ST. ANDREWS ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050 VS. ACIT - 5(1), MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AACPJ 3918 Q ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIRAJ MEHTA & SHRI NILESH M. PATEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H. N. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 04.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.02 .2019 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10, MUMBAI (LD.CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31.03.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1989 TO 16.11.1999. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE INSTRUMENTS AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD BORROWED RS. 14,25,000 WERE BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOT HUNDIES AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69D. 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,25,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LOANS/BORROWING IN THE HUNDIES WHICH WERE REPAID IN CASH FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT'S GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CHENNAI ITAT, IN MANI AND MONEY LTD VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (2013} 38 TAXMANN.COM 270 AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND BY STATING THAT THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED ORALLY THAT HE IS NO T PRESSING THE GROUND. 2 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 3. GROUND NO. 3 ABOVE HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. EARLIER THE MATTER WAS DEALT WITH BY THE I TAT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2007. ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED AS UNDER: 17. NEXT WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI RAVI B. JAISING IN IT(SS)A NO. 406/MUM/2003, AS FAR AS ITS INDEPENDENT GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED. THE FOURTH GROU ND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,25,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LOANS/BORROWALS IN HUNDIES, WHICH WERE REPAID IN CASH FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.14,25,000 DID NOT COME OUT OF HUNDI TRANSACTIJONS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, RELATED TO TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BILLS OF EXCHANGE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SEC. 69D APPLIES TO HUNDI ALONE AND NOT TO BILLS OF EXCHANGE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEAR ING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HUNDI AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE ARE LEGALLY DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS AND CANNOT BE EQUATED. 5. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE DIRECTION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN UP THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION 57 HUNDIES AMOUNTING TO RS.14,25 ,000/ - WERE SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT'S RESIDENCE AND WERE PUT IN SEIZED LOOSE PAPER FILE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS OWN HAND IS BETTER HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S . 132(4) . HOWEVER, WHI L E FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THAT THE SEIZED HUNDIES WERE PROPOSED BORROWA LS . APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF HIS OWN STATEMENT AND ALSO BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN ON THE SEIZED HUNDIES AS 'CASH PAID'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE AO HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,25,000/ - U/S 69D OF THE ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, 3 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: 1.1.23 NEXT ISSUE THAT REQUIRES YOU HONOUR'S KIND CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF RS.14,25, 000 / - MADE UNDER SECTION G9D OF THE ACT, THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THIS REGARD HELD THAT ' THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSES SUBMITTED THAT HUNDI AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE ARE LEGALLY DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS AN D C A NNNOT BE EQUALED. WE DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. ' 1.1.24 IN THIS REGARD, WE SUBMIT/ENCLOSE THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE AGGREGATING TO RS . 14,25,000/ - TOR YOUR RECORDS. FROM THE SAID INSTRUMENTS, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THEY ART; TITLED AS 'B ILLS OF EXCHANGE' , THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT FOR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69D OF THE ACT - TO BE INVOKED, AMOUNT BORROWED OR REPAID SHOULD BE ON A HUNDI FORM. 1.1.25 THE TERM 'HUNDI' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 1961. THEREFORE, WHETHER AN INSTRUMENT IS A HUNDI CAN BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE WELL - RECOGNISED CHARACTERISTICS OF HUNDI. 1.1.26 WHETHER A DOCUMENT IS HUNDI OR NOT AND CHARACTERISTIC OF A HUNDI WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEXAN PHARTNACEIITICALS PVT. LT D. (1995) 126 CTK (AP) 57(ENCLOSED). TH E HONBLE ANDHRA PR ADESH HIGH COUR T IN THIS REGARD CONCLUDED THAT '. FROM ALL THE AUTHORITIES DESCRIBING THE HUNDI TRANSACTIONS, THE COMMON DENOMINATOR TO BE FOUND OUT REGARDING THE HUN DI TRANSACTION ( EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) MAY BE STATED AS FOLLOWS: (1) THERE ARC ALWAYS THREE PARTIES TO SUCH A TRANSACTION. THEY ARC DRAWER, DRAWEE, AND PAYEE. THE DRAWER CANNOT HIMSELF BE THE DRA W EE. IF THE TRANSACTION IS BILATERAL, IT IS A VERY STRONG INDICATION TO SHOW THAT IT IS N OT A HUNDI TRANSACTION. (2) HUNDI IS PAYABLE TO SATISFY A PERSON OR ORDER BUT NEGOTIABLE WITHOUT ENDOWMENT B Y THE PAYEE. (3) THE HOLDER OF HINDI IS ENTITLED TO SUE ON ITS BASIS WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENT IN HIS FAVOUR. (4) HUNDI ONCE, ACCEPTED B Y THE DONEE , COULD BE NEGOTIATED WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT (5) IN CASE OF LOSS OF HUNDI, THE OWNER CAN CLAIM DUPLICATE OR TRIPLICATE FROM THE DRAWER AND PRESENT THE SAME TO THE DRAWEE FOR CLAIMING THE PAYMENT. (6) HUNDI IS NORMALLY IN ORIENTAL LANGUAGE AS PER THE MERCANT ILE CUSTOM. THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS EMANATE FROM THE LONGSTANDING CUSTOM OFHUNDI TRANSACTION. SEC. I OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, IN TERMS, PROVIDES THAT THE LOCAL USAGE RELATING !O ANY INSTRUMENT IN. ORIENTAL LANGUAGE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVI SIONS OF THE SAID ACT...' THE INSTRUMENTS IN QUESTIONARE NUT TRIPARTITE INSTRUMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INSTRUMENTS WERE BILATERAL INSTRUMENTS. 1.1.27 FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEXAN PHARMACCUTICALS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT ' IT MAY ALSO BE POINTED OUT INCIDENTALLY THA T THE DOCUMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE WAIVED THE NOTICE OF DISHONOUR IN ADVANCE... THIS IS ALSO INDICATIVE OF THE TRANSACTION BEING NOT A HUNDI TRANSACTION ,' THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE INSTRUMENTS IN QUESTION, THE 'NOTICE OF DISHONOUR' HAS BEEN WAIVED IN ADVANCE. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, AS ESTABLISHED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS, THE INSTRUMENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS HUNDIS. 4 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 1.1.28 FURTHER, IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER A PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT IS A HUNDI OR NOT, THE PRINCIPAL TEST IS THE TEST OF NEGOTIABILITY. IF A DOCUMENT IS NEGOTIABLE ONLY BY ENDORSEMENT BECAUSE IT IS PAYABLE TO ORDER, THE SAME WILL NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF NEGOTIABILITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INSTRUMENTS ART; NEGOTIABLE ONLY BY ENDORSEMENT, DUE TO THE INSTRUMENTS BEING PAYABLE TO ORDER. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CHENNAI I TAT IN THE CASE OF /TO VS. M.K.A. CHINNASIVAINYNAFLAR& SONS (1982) 14 TTJ 0546 (ENCLOSED), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT '...S. 69D APPLIES ONLY TO INSTRUMENTS WHICH TIRE NEGOTIABLE WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT AND THAT NEGOTIABILITY IS THE PRINCIPAL TEST TO FIND OUT WHET HER A DOCUMENT IS A HUNDI OR NOT, IN THESE TRANSACTIONS THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN ENGLISH. THESE ARE PROMOTES PAYABLE TO ORDER. THERE ARE ONLY TWO PARTIS AND NOT THREE PARTIES LIKE BILLS OF EXCHANGE. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NEGOTIABLE ONLY BY ENDORSEMENT BECAUSE TH ESE ARE TILL PROMISSORY NOTES PAYABLE TO ORDER. SO MERELY BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN ON HUNDI PAPER AND BECAUSE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE AAC WERE PREPARED ON THE BA SIS THAT THESE ARE HUNDI DOCUMENTS, THESE DOCUMENTS WILL NOT ACQUIRE THE CHARACTER OF HUN DI TRANSACTIONS. T HE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS TO MAKE A DOCUMENT, A HUNDI DOCUMENT, ARE ABSENT IN THIS CASE. SO S. 69 D CANNOT BE APPLIED.' 1.1.29 FURTHER, THE INSTRUMENTS HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT, DISMISSING THE REVENUE'S SIP IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. THIRAVI ARATHNANADA R ( P.S.T.S.) (1991) 187 ITR (ST.) 37, HELD THAT A DOCUMENT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A HUNDI, BECAUSE HUNDIS ARE GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AS A DOCUMENT WRITTEN IN VERNACULAR. IT IS, THER E FORE, HUMB LY SUBMITTED THAT ANY INSTRUMENT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH CANNOT BE TREATED AS HUNDI IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 1.1.30 IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED T HAT DUE TO THE INSTRUMENTS NOT CONSTITUTING A HUNDI, T HEY CAN BE CONSTRUED AS EITHER HILLS OF EXCHANGE OR PROMISSORY NOTES. 1.1.31 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND ABOVEMENTIONEDFAVOURABLE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE PRAY TO YOUR HONOR TO DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.14,25,000 UNDER SECTION 69D OF THE ACT. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT IT WAS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THAT THE DOCUMENT S MARKED AS A2 ARE HUNDIS WHICH WERE BORROWED AND REPAID IN CASH. HE HELD THAT SINCE T HERE WAS C ATEGORICAL CONFESSION BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH PARTY AND THERE WAS NO RETRACTION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 8. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ITAT WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IT HAD REMITTED THE IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE HANDI AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE ARE LEGALLY DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EQUATED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE INASMUCH AS HE HAS ACTED AS APPELLA TE AUTHORITY TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. ON MERITS ALSO, WE NOTE THAT AS ALREADY NOTED BY THE ITAT ABOVE, SECTION 69D APPLIES TO HUNDI ALONE AND NOT TO BILLS OF EXCHANGE. REGARDING THE ISSU E OF H U ND I AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID BORROWING WAS BY DRAWING BILLS OF EXCHANGE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: 3. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPELLANT HAD TAKEN BORROWING BY DRAWING BILL OF EXCHANGE. COPY OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED AT PG. 9 - 65 OF PAPER BOOK. 4. IT IS THEREFORE AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS DRAWN BILL OF EXCHANGE AND NOT HUNDI. 5. AS PER SECTION 69D OF THE ACT, ONLY IF HUNDI'S ARE DRAWN OTHER THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE THEN ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION. 6. IN OUR CASE, APPELLANT HAS DRAWN BILL OF EXCHANGE AND NOT HUNDI. HENCE, QUESTION OF ADDITION U/S 69D DOES NOT ARISE. 7. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLIO WED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - A. SLP DISMISSED BY APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. THIRAVIARATHNA NADAR (1991) 187 ITR(ST.)37 B. CIT V. DEXAN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. (1995) 126 CTR 57 (AP HC) C. CIT C . PARANJOTHI SALT CO. (1995) 211ITR 141 (MAD HC) D. CIT VS. CAPITAL FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. (2007) DGLS 1579 (DEL HC) E. CIT VS. RAM NIVAS (2008) DGLS 79 (DEL HC) F. ITO VS. M.K.A CHINNASWAMY NADAR & SONS (1982) 14 TTJ 546 (CHEN.ITAT) 10. WHILE EXAMINING THE PRESENT CASE ON THE TOUCH STONE OF THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DEXAN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NOTED THAT A BILL OF EXCHANGE IN THE VERNACULAR LANGUAGE IS GENERALLY CALLED AS HUNDI. HUNDI ES ARE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS WRITTEN IN AN ORIENTAL LANGUAGE. THEY ARE 6 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 SOMETIMES BIL LS OF EXCHANGE AND AT OTHER TIMES PROMISSORY NOTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO LOCAL USAGES AND ARE UNAFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER CONCLUDED AS UNDER: WE FEEL THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR BRINGING S, 69 D OF THE ACT ON THE STATUTE BOOK IS TO COVER THE HUNDI TRANSACTION IN VIEW OF THE WORDING OF S. I OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. NOW CONSIDERING THE PRESENT TRANSACTIONS AS POINTED OUT ALREADY, WE FIND THAT APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE CO NTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE IN ENGLISH AND NOT IN ORIENTAL LANGUAGE, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT BETWEEN THREE PARTIES AT ALL. TH E TRANSACTIONS AFORESAID ARE ALL BILATERAL. THE DRAWER HIMSELF IS THE DRAWEE IN ALL TH E TRANSACTIONS UNDER QUESTION. T HOUGH IT MAY NO T 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 THA T THE TRANSACTION IS ONL Y 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 PROMISSOR Y NOTE WHERE IT IS A BILATERAL TRANSACTION. IT IS NOT THE FORM BU T THE SUBSTANCE OF T HE 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 INCIDENTAL LY THAT THE DOCUMENTS UNDE R CONSIDERATION HAVE WAIVED THE NOTICE OF DISHONOUR IN ADVANCE AND NO GRACE PERIOD IS GRANTED. T HIS IS ALSO INDICATIVE OF THE TRANSACTION BEING NOT A HUNDI TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT A HUNDI TRANSACTION. WE ANSWER THE REFERENCE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE . 11. EXAMINING THE PRESENT CASE ON THE TOUCH STONE OF THE ABOVE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECISION, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE INSTRUME NT AS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE US 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 U/S. 69D IS UNSU STAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.02.2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 27.02.2019 7 IT ( S S ) NO. 4592/MUM/2017 ROSHANI , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI