SH. PRADEEP SAWHNEY,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the revenue can tax expenditure incurred in earlier years if it is proved to be bogus and that liabilities can be deemed ceased over time, considering non-payment and intention. The CIT(A)'s disallowance was upheld based on the facts.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of outstanding balances of sundry creditors and advances from customers. The Assessing Officer added back the amount of sundry creditors for which confirmations were not provided, citing cessation of liability.
What were the issues?
Whether the revenue can tax unconfirmed sundry creditors in a subsequent year due to cessation of liability, and if the CIT(A) correctly upheld the disallowance based on the facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.223 citing222 ITR 344 · 1996 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja39 citing325 ITR 593 · 2010 · HC
- Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey17 citing377 ITR 363 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Rajasthan Golden Transport Co.(P) Ltd.11 citing249 ITR 723 · 2001 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. C. M. GargDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 26.11.2015. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII [‘CIT(A)’] erred in upholding the disallowance made by learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) for non-providing confirmations of outstanding balances of sundry creditors amounting to Rs.1,08,82,873/-.
That the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance made by AO on account of advances received from customers amounting to Rs.2,63,142/-.
That the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance made by AO on account of car expenses and 2 Pradeep Sawhney depre
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, JaipurJaipur1 Oct 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Rajasthan Golden Transport Co.(P) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that the liabilities ceased to exist or that the assessee obtained any benefit by way of remission or cessation. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal...
- M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore25 Mar 2021Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amount written off by M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. constituted a trade surplus and taxable income for the assessee, as it was received in the course of business and remained unclaimed. The assessee...
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiDelhi30 Jul 2021Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that liabilities appearing in audited accounts and not written back do not cease to exist, thus Section 41(1) is not attracted. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for foreign travel expenses an...
- Anil Kumar Dangayach HUF, Jaipur vs ITO, JaipurJaipur20 Mar 2018Allowed
Also relies on Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made solely based on doubting the genuineness or identity of creditors, or simply because they are old. The cessation of liability must be established, and...
- M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi10 Nov 2017Allowed
Also relies on Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked as there was no cessation or remission of liability that resulted in a benefit to the assessee, especially since the holding company later reversed the write-off. Se...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
