M/S. SHIV SUNDER GRIT UDYOG,HARYANA vs. ITO, NARNAUL
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the liability was discharged in the subsequent financial year, the addition was incorrect. No addition can be made unless the Revenue gathers contrary evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee treated sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 1,71,627/- as bogus by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended these were payments to labourers and truck owners, whose confirmations were not obtained as they lacked fixed addresses.
What were the issues?
Whether sundry creditors can be treated as bogus and added to income when the liability was discharged in the subsequent year and confirmations were not obtained from labourers and truck owners.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order dated 22.12.2014 of Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. The effective ground of appeal is ground no.2 which reads as under.
2. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,71,627/- made by the Ld.A.O. by treating the sundry creditors as bogus.
2. After hearing rival contentions, I find that the assessee has furnished confirmation of balances of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.27,46,791/-. Copies of accounts and confirmations were not furnished only in the case of creditors to the tune of Rs.1,71,627/-. But the assessee submitted that these creditors listed out at page 2 of the assessment order, are labourers and truck owners, who have been paid these amounts in the immediately succeeding financial year and that confirmations cannot be obtained from them, as they do not have any fixed addresses. In my view this Explanation
Shiv Sunder Grit Udyog has to be upheld, the conclusion of the Ld.CIT(A) that these amounts are bogus and fictitious liabilities is not correct. When the liability in question has been discharged in the subsequent A.Y., no addition can be made unless the evidence is gathered to the contrary by the Revenue.
In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th November,2015.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026