SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

ITA 756/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 October 2018AY 2014-1519 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1)(a) is applicable even if the assessee's accounts are rejected, as the provision deals with the remission or cessation of a trading liability previously allowed as a deduction. The fact that the liability was discharged in cash in a subsequent year was considered immaterial.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 4.61 lacs outstanding to trade creditors, made under Section 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that since their accounts were rejected and income estimated, no further addition under Section 41(1) was permissible.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under Section 41(1)(a) is permissible when the assessee's accounts have been rejected and income estimated. Whether the discharge of a trading liability in cash in a subsequent year affects the applicability of Section 41(1)(a).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)(a),Section 143(3),Section 145(3),Section 68,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA

Hearing: 20.09.2018Pronounced: 31.10.2018

Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 19.10.2017, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 18.11.2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2.1 The appeal, apparently time barred by 109 days, was explained by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Ashray Sarna, to be in fact not so, as it was preferred in time, on 08/12/2017, by depositing an appeal fee at Rs.8600, genuinely believing it to be the correct amount, albeit short by Rs.1400, which was duly deposited on 29/3/2018 upon b

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 41(1)(a)

All 64 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →