M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These cross-appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, dated 21-12-2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

4.1 The assessee during the year has claimed an expense of Rs 1,90,56,757/-on account of a sales commission paid to 35 parties. The details of the parties along with the amount of commission and their address are placed on pages 5 to 7 of the AO order.

4.2 The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that all the parties to whom the commission was paid are based in New Delhi, Shri Ganganagar only. Some of the commission agents were related parties to the assessee. The AO also observed that no commission on account of sale was paid in the earlier assessment years.

In view of the above, the AO issued the show-cause notice to the assessee vide letter dated 21st March 2014 for justification of the commission expenses.

In compliance with it, the assessee submitted that the commission was paid in order to increase the sales. As a result the sale of the assessee was increased by 150% in comparison of the last year.

4.3 The assessee also submitted that the commission agents referred the customers to it for the sales. Accordingly, the commission was paid to the commission agents for referring the customers.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 4 - 4.4 All the commission agents have accounted for commission income in their books of accounts and the same has been offered to tax.

4.5 The parties to whom the sale was made by the assessee at the instance of the commission agent were based on different geographical area such as Panipat, Ahmedabad, Gandhidham, Moradabad (UP) & Kolkata etc.

4.6 The AO to verify the veracity of the commission agent issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act for seeking the necessary details. The notice u/s 133(6) was issued to all the commission agents. But only six parties replied in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The AO from the replies made by these parties observed certain facts as detailed under: i. The reply from all the parties was verbatim. ii. The reply of all the parties was the same and contained same spelling mistake in their replies. iii. Some of the commission agents based in Delhi were having common addresses. iv. Some of the commission agents were related parties to the assessee. v. These commission agents have not made sales to any other party in the last three years. vi. Almost all the commission agents raised their bills to the assessee at the end of the financial year, i.e. 31-03-2011, whereas, the sales were made throughout the year.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 5 - 4.7 In view of above, the AO was of the view that the amount of commission expenses is nothing but an arrangement between the assessee and commission agent to reduce the profit. Therefore the AO disallowed the same u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.

5.1 The commission was paid after deducting the TDS u/s 194H of the Act and through banking channel. Therefore, the identity and genuineness of the commission expenses cannot be doubted. The non- response from the commission agent u/s 133(6) of the Act cannot be a ground for making the disallowance of the commission expenses. The assessee filed the income tax return, copies of the bills, PAN and confirmation of the commission agents as additional evidences under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule.

5.2 However, the Ld CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as under:

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 6 - “In my considered opinion the contentions of assessee are not tenable. As can be seen while the sales of assessee have been made to parties of Panipat, Ahmedabad, Gandhidham, Moradabad and Kolkata the commissions have been claimed to have been paid to parties of New Delhi and Sri Ganganagar. There is no plausible reason as to why the assessee based at Gandhidham would pay commission to parties of Ganganagar & Delhi for sales made to parties who are located at Gandhidham and Ahemdabad. The assessee and the concerned parties have not adduced any evidence as to what kind of service these parties offered for the assessee, what quantum of sales these parties obtained for assessee, what was the rate of commission, how these parties contacted the purchasers and who were those purchasers etc. Thus, on the face itself the whole story is nothing but concocted one. This is made clear further by the fact that the Assessing Order had raised very specific queries to these parties in his notices 133(6) to give details of the purchasers like name, address, contact person, contact number, E- mail address etc and the person who were in touch with the said commission receiving parties. The Assessing Officer had also specifically asked these parties as to how they came in contact with the purchasing parties and whether they had traveled to countries outside India. If the contacts were made through telephone they were asked to give copy of call details and if contact were made through E-mail, then to give E-mail address. They were asked to give details like total amount of sales, facilitated names of purchasers, amount of commission, rate of commission, nature of services provided by them alongwith copies of the bills raised for commission. Of the 35 parties, the A.O. received reply only in 6 cases. The other 29 parties did not respond. Analysing the reply received from the said 6 parties. The A.O. has brought that reply received from 4 different places -in Delhi are identical in their reply with identical grammatical mistake. The reply is worth reproducing here under:-

“We are realatede business in used cloth from many years so we meet verbly with the party,"

The A.O. has also brought out that 3 parties namely Udit Mahajan, Ankur Mahajan HUF and Ashok Mahajan shared common address and the reply received from them is identical with identical .grammatical

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 7 - mistakes. Apart from the reply reproduced above another reply received from these parties being identical and having common mistake is as under:- "We were not provide same sales made to any other company/person/firm in the FY 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11" The other noteworthy fact brought out by Assessing Officer is that while sales have been made by the Assessee continuously throughout the year, the bills of sales commission in majority of the cases have been raised at end year on 31/03/2011. Further the assessee did not come out with any explanation or details as to how he came into contact with these parties and whether any of these parties were related to directors or employee of the company. The Assessing Officer however observed that Ashok Mahajan whom the commission has been claimed to have been paid is a share holder. Similarly Ankur Mahajan, Karta of HUF is son of Shri Ashok Mahajan, a share holder and Harish Mahajan, Karta of Harish Kumar Mahajan HUF is brother of share holder Shri Ashok Mahajan, Since the assessee did not come out clean with the full facts. – It can be reasonably inferred from the overall facts of the case as discussed above that the claim of sales commission payment is nothing j-but self serving bogus arrangement with relatives or friends of the persons related to the company to claim the bogus expenses.

I find no merit in contention of the assessee in view of above discussion and have no hesitation n holding hat the assessee has failed to establish the reasonableness of these expenses as well as their genuineness and therefore the action of Assessing Officer calls for no interference. However, I find the impugned disallowance is to be made u/s 37(1) as it is not proved to be a genuine business expenditure actually incurred and not u/s 69C. To this extent the order of A.O is modified and the disallowance is sustained. The ground of appeal is rejected.”

5.3 Being aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A) assessee is in the second appeal before us.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 8 - 6. The Ld AR before us filed two paper books running from pages 1 to 393 and submitted that the turnover of the assessee has increased to Rs.71.69 crores from Rs. 48.34 crores. This increase in the turnover was possible only with the assistance of commission agents.

6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that all the details about commission expenses such as copies of the invoices, the rate of commission, amount of commission, name, address, PAN were duly filed to the AO during the assessment proceedings which are placed on pages 246 to 248 of the paper book.

6.2 The Ld. AR also filed the details of the sales effected through commission agents, which is placed on pages 249 to 268 of the paper book.

6.3 The Ld. AR also submitted that the commission was paid in the subsequent years and the same was accepted without any disallowance. The detail of the commission paid by the assessee in the subsequent years is placed on pages 387 to 391 of the paper book.

6.4 The Ld. AR also submitted that the provision of section 69C cannot be invoked in the case in hand. It is because the assessee has explained the nature of the expenses and the source of the same has not

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 9 - been doubted. All the expenses were duly disclosed in the financial statement and recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee.

6.5 On the other hand, the Ld DR submitted that in respect of many commission agents there is a common address given by the assessee.

6.6 There was no commission expense incurred by the assessee in the earlier year, though, there is no change in the nature of the business of the assessee.

6.7 The reply given by six parties in response to the notice issued to them u/s 133(6) of the Act is verbatim. Thus, the reply furnished by six commission agents cannot be relied upon.

6.8 The Ld. AR in his rejoinder submitted that the turnover in the year under consideration has been increased from 48.34 crores to 71.69 crores and this was the second year of the business.

6.9 The Ld. AR also submitted that in the subsequent year the commission was paid to the same parties but no disallowance was made by the revenue.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 10 - disallowed by the AO by treating them as bogus expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The AO alleged that in many cases the addresses of the commission agents were common.

7.1 There was no response from all the commission agents in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act.

7.2 The sale was made by the assessee throughout the year, but the bills for the commission expenses were raised at the end of the year.

7.3 All the commission agents did not make any sale on behalf of other parties other than the assessee in the last three years.

7.4 On perusal of the above facts, there comes a doubt/suspicion regarding the commission expenses claimed by the assessee, but other facts cannot be just brushed aside. The other facts include that the turnover of the assessee has gone high from 48.34 crores to 71.69 crores. The assessee sold goods throughout in India which is not possible without having a sales network. Thus, commission agents ensured growth in providing the network for sourcing the clients. The assessee has duly furnished the details of the parties which were referred by the commission agents for the sale. But the AO has not exercised his power by issuing the notice to these parties to ascertain the involvement of the commission agents.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

7.5 The assessee being the corporate body can make the payment to the directors /shareholders of the company for the services received from them. There is no prohibition under the Act for the expenses/ payment made to the related parties until and unless it is proved that the expenses were not incurred in connection with the business. In the instant case, the AO has just remarked that the commission has been paid to the related parties without mentioning the reason for making the disallowance. The provision of Section 40A(2)(b) requires the AO to make the disallowance, if the expenses paid to the related parties are unreasonable and excessive in comparison to the market rate. But the AO has not brought anything on record suggesting that the assessee has incurred unreasonable expenses in relation to related parties. The assessee has furnished the confirmation, details of the bills, and the basis of quantification of the commission which are available in the paper book. It is also undisputed fact that the commission was paid to the same parties in the subsequent year as well and the AO made no disallowance. The assessee during the proceedings has filed several details which have been discussed in the preceding paragraph to justify the commission expenses but no infirmity/defect was pointed out by the AO in the submission of the assessee.

7.6 It is a fact on record that the assessee has not incurred any commission expenses in the immediately preceding year, but that does

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 12 - not mean that commission expenses will not be incurred in the subsequent years.

7.7 After considering the facts in totality, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus by submitting the details to the AO during the assessment proceedings in the form of PAN, confirmation, details of sales etc. Thus, no disallowance on account of commission expenses can be made. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case CIT vs. Inbuilt Merchant Private Ltd. in ITAT No. 225 of 2013, G.A. No. 3825 of 2013 vide order dated 14th March 2014 wherein it was held as under:- “… … With the advancement of technology, it has become possible to sell goods throughout the country through the internet. For that purpose, agent are required throughout the country. The mechanism in that regard has been disclosed by the assessee and has been recorded in the order of the CIT(Appeals). For the purpose of carrying on its business, the assessee has to recruit the agents. It may not be possible for the assessee to know them personally. Whatever address was furnished to the assessee, has been disclosed to the Income-tax Department. Payments were admittedly made by cheque after deduction of tax. The tax deducted as source has duly been deposited. The judgment in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 relied upon b Mr. Bhowmick does not really assist him. The aforesaid judgment is an authority for the proposition that mere payment by account payee cheque cannot establish that the transactions was genuine, but in the case before us, besides the fact that payment was made by cheque, there are other pieces of evidence available which are as follows: a) Books of Accounts maintained by the assessee in the ordinary course of business’ b) Deduction

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 13 - We are, as such of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Tribunal are unexceptionable. We, therefore refuse to admit the appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed.”

7.8 We also draw support from the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation Limited reported in 101 taxman 146 involving similar facts & circumstances wherein it was held as under:- “Genuineness of the agreement had not been disputed. The assessee and ISC agreed that the sale would be through ISC and the commission on sales at a particular rate would be paid by the assessee. All payments were made by account payee cheques. Statements of partners of ISC were recorded by the ITO at the back of the assessee. No opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine them, not even copies of those statements were supplied to the assessee at the time of assessment, and these statements were used against the assessee. When the ITO had not allowed to submit copies of the evidences which were relevant to find out whether ISC had rendered any service, these very evidences, thereafter, were submitted in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who as a matter of fact found that services were rendered and commission had been paid for the services rendered by ISC. Whether any services had been rendered by ISC was basically a question of fact. No satisfactory answer had been given by the department to the query of the Bench as to what type of evidence in such cases was required. In cases of sales promotion, sales could be procured even on telephone if the purchaser was persuaded by the Agent. There was a concurrent finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as of the Tribunal that services had been rendered by ISC and that commission had been paid for that service. Merely, if some satisfactory answer had not been given by either of the partners of ISC to the ITO, that did not mean that no services were rendered or to disbelieve the genuineness of the agreement for services or sales, as well as of the payment. Even payment had not been denied. Therefore, in such cases it

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 14 - could not be said that the finding of fact was perverse. When the finding of fact regarding rendering of service was not perverse, the payment of commission could not be disallowed. No interference was, therefore, called for in the order of the Tribunal.”

7.9 In view of above, we hold that the commission expenses have been incurred by the assessee exclusively in connection with the business and therefore the same are eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we reverse the orders of authorities below and direct the AO to delete the addition on account of commission expenses. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 15 - 9.1 In compliance to it, the assessee submitted that all the loans were taken through banking channel and also submitted that the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act have already been served to the parties.

9.2 The assessee also submitted that its financial position is very week and therefore it is not possible to repay the loan taken from the parties. Therefore, these loan parties were not cooperating with the income tax department.

9.3 However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and disallowed the amount of loan taken by the assessee during the year for Rs.89,70,000/- and corresponding interest of Rs.11,89,871/- and added back to the total income of the assessee.

10.1 The Ld CIT(A) called for the remand report from the AO. The AO in his remand report dated 17-04-2017 has accepted that the loan from the four parties is genuine as these four parties have filed necessary details including confirmation. The name of the four parties stands as under:

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 16 - i. Hotel City Plaza ii. Madhav Enterprises iii. Madhu Gupta iv. Praveen Kumar Gupta (HUF)

10.2 The AO in his assessment report further submitted that there was no confirmation/response in respect of the 7 parties as detailed under: i. Archana Ramavtar Bansal ii. Himanshu K. Gupta iii. Kamal K. Gupta (HUF) iv. Laxmikant Gupta v. Rakesh Trading Co. vi. Ritu Gupta vii. Satish B Gupta

10.3 The AO also submitted that the breakup of the loan was not furnished in their balance sheet.

10.4 The AO in respect of one creditor namely Archana Ramavtar Bansal submitted that she was not traceable. Therefore, the loan taken by the assessee from such person cannot be relied upon.

10.5 The assessee in response to the remand report submitted that there are six parties who have filed recovery petition before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The assessee furnished the necessary details of the

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 17 - petitions which were filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by the parties as detailed under: Sr.No Name of the Petitioner Petition No. 1 Himanshu K Gupta Company Petition No.160 of 2015 2 Himanshu K Gupta HUF Company Petition No.161 of 2015 3 Laxmikant Gupta Company Petition No, 156 of 2015 4 Rakesh Trading Co. Company Petition No.125 of 2015 5 Ritu Laxmikant Gupta Company Petition No. 154 of 2015 6 Satish Balla Gupta Company Petition No.159 of 2015

10.6 The Ld CIT(A) after considered the submission of the assessee deleted the addition in part made by the AO by observing as under: “Having gone through said recovery petition as obtained by the Assessing Officer from the Registrar, Honorable High court, I find that the said petitioners have claimed following amount of loans to assessee and interest thereof recoverable from the assessee:-

Sr. Name of the Amount of Amount of Total amount No. Petitioner Credit interest Recoverable 1. Himanshu K Gupta Rs3,00,000/- Rs 86,467 /- Rs.3,86,467/- Company 2 Kamal Kishor Rs 12,50,000/- Rs 4,73,787 /- Rs.17.23.787/- K Gupta HUF Company 3 Laxmikant Rs 10,00,000/- Rs3,84,367/- Rs 13,84,367 /- Gupta Company 4 Rakesh Trading Rs 13,50,000 /- Rs 3,91,935/- Rs 17,41,935/- Co. Company 5 Ritu Rs.5,00,000/- Rs 1,44,951/- Rs 6,44,951/- Laxmikant Gupta Company 6 Satish Balla Rs.19,99,323/- Rs.4,49,323/- Rs 15,50,000/- Gupta Company

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

Having considered the above facts and. circumstances, I find that the fact that assessee received impugned credits from 10 of said creditors is amply proved by the Remand report of Assessing Officer and the recovery petitions filed by the creditors before the Honourable High court. Addition u/s 68 in respect of loans from these creditors is not sustainable. However, in case of Archana Gupta neither there is recovery petition nor assessee has filed any confirmation nor could she be traced during remand proceedings. Accordingly, in my considered Opinion, the credit of Rs 5 lacs and interest thereof of Rs 43,764/- in name of Archana Gupta is not proved to be genuine as identity of the creditor, her creditworthiness and genuineness of credit is not established. Therefore, addition of Rs 5,43,764/- is confirmed. Balance addition of Rs 96,16,107/- (Rs 1,01,59,871 - Rs 5,43,764/- = Rs 9,616,107/-) is directed to be deleted. Assessee succeeded partly on this ground.”

10.7 Being aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A) both assessee and revenue are before us. The assessee is in appeal before us for the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.5 lacs and corresponding interest of Rs.43,764/- whereas, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the deletion made by the Ld CIT(A) for Rs.84,70,000/- and corresponding interest of Rs.11,46,107/- only.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 19 - 12. The Ld. AR before us submitted that the details of the parties from whom the loan was taken were furnished to the AO during the remand proceedings. Such details contained the name, addresses, PAN, amount and the confirmation from the parties. Such details are placed on page 7 to 36 of the paper book.

12.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the AO himself has deleted the addition in respect of four parties as discussed above in his remand report. Therefore, the same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee.

12.2 The Ld. AR in respect of his claim drew our attention on the remand report of the AO which is placed on pages 37 to 47 of the paper book.

12.3 The Ld. AR before us also filed the details of the recovery petitions pending before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which were filed by the lenders. Such details are placed on pages 48-245 of the paper book.

12.4 The Ld. AR before us filed the copy of the loan, confirmation from Archana Ramavtar Bansal along with the bank details, which is available on record.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 20 - 12.5 On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the creditworthiness of the loan parties was not substantiated by the assessee.

Both the ld. AR & DR before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them.

13.1 However, we note that the AO in respect of four parties as discussed in the preceding paragraph has accepted the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld CIT(A) in respect of such four parties.

13.2 In respect of another six parties, we note that recovery petitions pending before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore we are of the view that that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted in respect of such parties. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld CIT(A).

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 21 - 13.3 In respect of last party Smt. Archana Ramavtar Bansal, we note that the assessee has repaid the loan of Rs.5 lacs to Smt. Archana Ramavtar Bansal. As such, the assessee has shown liability in the name of Archana Ramavtar Bansal for Rs.7,00,718/- as opening balance, which was reduced during the year to Rs.2,00,718. Thus, it is clear that the Assessee has made the payment for Rs.5,00,000/- during the year. Therefore we note that there was no fresh loan taken from Smt. Archana Ramavtar Bansal during the year. Accordingly, no disallowance can be made for the same. Hence, ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

15.1 The AO to verify the genuineness of the creditors requested the assessee to provide the confirmation from the party but the assessee failed to do so. Therefore, the AO treated the outstanding liability as not payable and has ceased to exist in the books of accounts. Therefore the same was disallowed under the provisions of Sec 41(1) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

16.1 Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 23 - 18. On the other hand Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of lower authorities below.

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 24 - not as per the books of accounts of accounts the liability exists and he has not made any write off of the same. Once the liability exists in the books of assessee and the creditor has right to claim over the same as per law, AO could not make addition on account of cessation of liability by invoking provision of section 41(1) of the Act. This issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434 (SC), wherein it is held that provision made towards purchase tax liability was allowed in earlier years and such provision was written back in a subsequent year under the impression that the dispute as to purchase tax liability was finally settled with the dismissal of the special leave petition in some other case, even though other issues bearing on the eligibility of purchase tax still remained. On these facts, it has been held that the unilateral act on the part of the assessee by way of writing off the liability in its accounts did not necessarily mean that the liability ceased in the eye of law. Hence, the provisions of section 41(1) were not attracted. Hence, respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and going through the facts of the present case, we are of the view that once the assessee has not made any write off of creditors in its books of accounts, the amounts cannot be treated as cessation of liability u/s.41(l) of the Act. Hence, we allow this issue of assessee's appeal. 5. Similar are the circumstances in the case of cessation of liability of M/s. ARC Infotech Private Limited amounting to Rs.95,610/-. As the assessee could not substantiate the sundry creditor ARC Infotech Private Limited which was outstanding as on 31.03.2002 the AO made the addition but assessee has never made any write off of this liability in its books of account. Similar are the facts in the present issue as in the above issue of sundry creditors, hence taking a consistent view we delete this addition. 6. As regards to the liability of Rs.54,918/- on account of commission payable to Shri Narendra Kumar Duggar, it is also a fact that this liability is outstanding and it pertains to financial year 1997-98 relevant to A.Y.1998-99 and this liability does not pertain to the relevant assessment year 2002-03. The facts are exactly identical to the facts of the first issue of sundry creditors. Hence taking a consistent view, we delete this addition.”

ITA Nos.30 & 85/Rjt/2018 Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd.(cross appeals) A.Y 2011-12

- 25 - In view of above, we hold that there cannot be any income on account of liability which has not been written back by the assessee in its books of accounts. Thus we reverse the order of authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal by the 20. Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/10/2018

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jktiky ;kno½ ¼ ¼jktiky ;kno½ ¼ ¼jktiky ;kno½ ¼olhe vgen ¼jktiky ;kno½ ¼ olhe vgen½ ½ ½ ½ olhe vgen olhe vgen U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk lnL; (RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03/10/2018 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 2, Ahmedabad. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Rajkot 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot