Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1610
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Nilu Gogoi @ Nilu Gogoi Chetia W/o Late Dibya Chetia - Appellant
Vs.
Lakhima Dutta Saikia W/o Ratul Saikia - Respondent
RSA No. 70 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. S G Baruah, Mr. B Borgohain,Mr B Saikia,Mr. S Neog
For the Respondent: Mr. K Boruah, Mr. B Haldar
The Income Tax Act prohibits cash loans over Rs. 20,000, necessitating proper documentary evidence and forensic examination to validate loan agreements, which the defendant failed to contest satisfactorily.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 269SS - Loan agreements - Validity and burden of proof - The appellate and trial courts failed to properly scrutinize case records relating to alleged loan amounts and validity of agreements, resulting in a flawed decision where the defendant's burden to disprove loans was incorrectly acknowledged. Judicial examination of the handwriting and forensic evidence was necessary to determine the authenticity of the agreements. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Burden of Proof - Court's determination on burden shifting invalid - The trial court's and appellate court's erroneous shifting of the burden of proof concerning the loan amounts on the defendant rather than maintaining it on the plaintiff creates a substantial legal question affecting the outcome of the case. (Paras 2-3, 18-19)
(C) Handwriting Expert Report's Relevance - Necessity for forensic scrutiny - Findings indicating alterations to loan documents were critical for establishing veracity of the claims. (Paras 18-20)
Facts of the case:
Appellant claims that the appellee did not return borrowed amounts specified in a hand note, meanwhile the appellee contends manipulation of said document. Legal issues revolved around authenticity of the hand note and methodology for proving the loans. (Paras 1-12)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff successfully established the lending of money through substantiated testimony and documentary evidence despite disputes from the defendant; the courts upheld the accounting of loans as valid. (Paras 11, 25-28)
Issues: Key issues include validity and manipulation of loan agreements; burden of proof regarding loan claims under the Income Tax Act. (Paras 5, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined both trial and appellate courts correctly assessed evidence, affirming that the burden of proof rested on the defendant to disprove the agreements made, which they failed to do adequately. (Paras 10-30)
Result: Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and case background (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding trial court errors (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's defense against allegations (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. representation of counsel and party identifiers (Para 9) |
| 5. issues framed by the trial court (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. trial court's findings on borrowing amounts (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. rejection of defendant's manipulation claims (Para 15) |
| 8. appellate court's dismissal of appeal (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. evaluation of witness testimonies (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 10. substantial questions of law identified (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 11. concurrent finding upheld between courts (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 12. affirmation of previous judgments (Para 28 , 29) |
| 13. judgment of dismissal issued (Para 30) |
| 14. summary of court orders and costs (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Nilu Gogoi is the appellant who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2024 and 19.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Money Appeal No. 01/2021, upholding the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2021 and 19.02.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division No. 1), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Money suit No. 06/2021.The respondent in this case is Smt. Lakhima Dutta Saikia.
2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the first Appellate Court has committed gross error and irregularity in deciding the appeal against the appellant in a manner which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Both the Appellate Court of First instance and the Trial Court did not properly scrutinize the case record and failed to examine the issue relating to the alleged borrowing of money by the appellant and relating to the execution of the hand note as well as the deposition of the official witness i.e., witness No. 2 for the defendant.
3. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court have clearly discussed about the disputed amount i.e., Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 3,55,450/-, being written subsequently on the basis of forensic examination report (Exhibit-A), as well as on the basis of the evidence of official witness i.e., witness No. 2 for the defendant. However, the learned Appellate Court of First instance as well as the learned Trial Court has erred while shifting the burden of proving the disputed amount on the defendant instead of the plaintiff which is bad in law. Both the Courts were silent about the purpose of loan. The Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence of DW1 that the son of the appellant/DW1 cleared his MBBS in the year 2013, which would answer the issue No. 2 relating to the borrowing of money for the purpose of education of the appellant’s son.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has assailed the decision on the failure of the First Appellate Court to observe that the issue No. 3 was struck out by the order dated 26.11.2020 in M.S. No. 06/2021 which was bad in law. It is contended that whether the alleged agreement between the appellant and the respondent is a valid document as a scrutiny of the document reveals manipulation of Exhibit-1 and its subsequent development i.e., findings of the handwriting expert, of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, Assam. No scope was accorded to analyse on the findings of any handwriting expert.
5. The learned Trial Court ought to have framed an issue on the manipulated amount added later, which would have had a bearing on the case. The Courts have also failed to appreciate that all the witnesses were interested witnesses. The cross examination of PW2 who is the writer of Exhibit-1 i.e., the hand note was also not taken into consideration. It is further contended that one who seeks equity and approaches for justice should approach with clean hands but the respondent has approached this Court with a manipulated document and thus the learned Trial Court completely erred while deciding the issue No. 4. The learned Trial Court failed
