ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/;S THAKRAL COMPUTERS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the amount was not written off and the CIT(A) granted relief based on confirmation letters. However, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of creditors were not sufficiently proven before the AO.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed sundry creditors of Rs. 5,42,28,528/- for being old and presumed to have ceased to be payable, adding it under Section 41(1). The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on a High Court decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the outstanding liability of sundry creditors had ceased to be enforceable and was thus taxable under Section 41(1), and if the assessee discharged its onus regarding the creditors' genuineness.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.76 citing343 ITR 408 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-14, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 21/03/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11.
Briefly, facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of trading and distribution of computers, components watches, DVR capture cards, etc. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed disclosing loss of Rs.70,35,698/-. Against said return of income, the assessment was Page 2 of 4 completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] vide order dated 19/03/2013 by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD)-7, Mumbai at total income of Rs.4,71,92,830/- before setting off brought forward loss and after set off of loss of Rs.nil. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed sundry creditors outstanding in the name of Happy Worth Ltd., of Rs.5,42,28,528/- on the ground that the liability is very old and ceased to be payable. AO, after analyzing the transaction the respondent- assessee had with this company had come to conclusion that the amounts payable on account of purchases made from this party were converted into unsecured loan and this has been outstanding for a period of 4 to 5 years. He presumed that this amount ceased to be enforceable liability and therefore, invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the IT Act, made addition of Rs.5,42,28,528/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order, after placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 343 ITR 408 held that this amount cannot be added u/s 41(1) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
5. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the ld.CIT(A), without appreciating facts of the case, deleted the addition. He further submitted that the assessee never furnished confirmation letters and therefore, the liability ceased to exist which is clearly taxable in view of Explanation 2 to section 41(1) of the IT Act.
On the other hand, learned AR of the assessee contended that there is no write off of amounts payable. Therefore, there is no question of cessation of liability.
We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in granting relief in respect of liability outstanding of Rs.5,42,28,528/-. It is undisputed fact that the amount is not written off in the books of account by the respondent-assessee. The AO inferred that since amount is outstanding for long time, the liability has ceased to exist but the ld.CIT(A) granted relief by observing that the liability still exists as confirmation letters from sundry creditors were filed before the AO but from perusal of the assessment order, there is nothing to show that the respondent-assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness, credit worthiness and identity of the sundry creditors. Therefore, in the fitness of things, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO to examine the issue de novo.
Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2018.
More judgments on Section 41(1)
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 328/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 327/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 326/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 325/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Morlidhar B Vamdote, Bardoli vs ITO, Ward-1, BardoliITA 1174/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Sml LTD vs. Mohan And Company And AnotherHimachal Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Umer Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And AnotherAllahabad · 15 Oct 2026
- Firoz @ Firoz Khan vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 15 Oct 2026