THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN REFERRED CASE No.193 of 1996 Dated:09.02.2011 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax, AP-II, Hyderabad. …Applicant and M/s.Yamuna Digital Electronics (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN REFERRED CASE No.193 of 1996 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following two questions are referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the documents styled as ‘Hundies’ drawn by the assessee in raising loans were not ‘Hundies’ within the meaning of sec.69D of the I.T.Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,27,740/- representing disallowance u/s 69D of the Income Tax Act? It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax that the reference is squarely covered by an unreported judgment of this Court dated 31.01.2001 in R.C.No.75 of 1991. The Division Bench while answering a similar question referred for the previous year 1983-1984 in the case of the same respondent answered the reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue following the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited[1]. In view of the above, the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Referred Case is accordingly disposed of. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 09.02.2011 vs [1] 214 ITR 576