M/S. DELHI HOUSING & FINANCE CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 454/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 December 2016AY 2009-103 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 mere inability to produce confirmation for old liabilities does not justify their addition to income, especially when no expenditure was claimed in the current year. The addition can only be made under Section 41(1) if there is remission or cessation of liability, which was not the case here.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 7,41,267/- to the assessee's income on account of unproved liabilities. The assessee argued that these were liabilities carried forward from earlier years and no expenditure was claimed in the current year.

What were the issues?

Whether unproved old liabilities, for which no expenditure was claimed in the current year, can be added to income without remission or cessation of liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Jain, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Hearing: 08.12.2016Pronounced: 13.12.2016

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 12th November, 2013.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised various grounds. However, they are all against the addition of `7,41,267/- which is made by the Assessing Officer on account of unproved liabilities.

3.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer made the addition of `7,41,267/- with the following finding:-

1.

“3. The assessee was asked to file confirmation/proof of liability of Rs.7,41,267/- excluding Rs.11,236 + 2500/- of 2 ITA-454/Del/2014 audit fee and accountancy charges. But the assessee is failed to produce the confirmation regarding these expenses. So an amount of Rs.7,41,262/- is disallowed and added back to the returned income of the assessee.”

4.

After considering the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides, we are unable to agree with the above finding of the Assessing Officer. Even if the assessee is not able to produce the confirmation of liabilities, the same cannot be disallowed because in this year, admittedly, no expenditure was claimed by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that it is a liability carried forward from the earlier years. Therefore, when no expenditure is claimed in this year, merely because the assessee could not file the confirmation, there cannot be any disallowance.

5.

Learned CIT(A) sustained the addition with the following finding :-

“Regarding these liabilities, the appellant could not place anything on record before me, which could prove that these liabilities were in existence as on 31.03.2009. Further, the genuine liability cannot lie unclaimed for such a long period of time. Thus, it is most unlikely that these liabilities remained unpaid. Thus, in view of the above facts, it is held that the liabilities of Rs.7,41,267/- are not existing in the relevant year and consequentially the asset to that extent remained unexplained; therefore, the liability requires to be assessed as income. Thus, the addition of Rs.7,41,267/- is sustained on the fact that the appellant failed to prove the existence of these liabilities during the relevant year.”

6.

After considering the submissions of both the sides, we are unable to agree with the above finding of the learned CIT(A). Merely because the liability remained unpaid for a longer period, it cannot be treated as income. In our opinion, the unpaid liability can be treated as income only when there is remission and cessation of liability and provision of Section 41(1) applies. However, learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5 has already given the finding that Section 41(1) is not 3 ITA-454/Del/2014 applicable. The relevant finding of learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5 is reproduced below :-

“It is not a case where the provisions of section 41(1) were invoked as it is not a case of remission or cessation of the liabilities.”

7.

Once it is an admitted position that there is no remission or cessation of liability during the year under consideration, in our opinion, the addition for unexplained old liabilities cannot be made. We, therefore, delete the addition of `7,41,267/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13.12.2016.

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 →