AKSHAY GUJRAL ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29 , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7617/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 41(1) was not sustainable in law. This was because the Assessing Officer's observation in the assessment order did not clearly establish that the amount in issue had ceased to exist as a liability as per the assessee's books of account, a mandatory condition cited from CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arose from an order upholding the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities had made this addition based on assessment and appellate orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) was sustainable in law without clear evidence from the assessee's books.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1),Section 153C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.12.2025Pronounced: 24.12.2025

ITBA/APL/M/2025-26/1081749296(1), in proceedings u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have added the amount in question of Rs. 10 lakhs in the assessee’s hands as cessation the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact emanating from the case records that the learned Assessing Officer’s relevant observation in para 3 at page 7 of the assessment order has nowhere made it clear that the amount in issue had ceased to exist as a liability as per the assessee’s books of account in the relevant previous year held as mandatory in CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC). I accordingly hold that impugned section 41(1) cessation of liability as not sustainable in law.

Order pronounced in open court on 24.12.2025.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →