← All Phrases

“sundry creditors”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,806 judgments

The decision most relied on for sundry creditors is CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (343 ITR 408), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on sundry creditors

CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.
343 ITR 408 · 2012 · High Court
76
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 cannot be made for genuine sundry creditors or trade payables merely carried forward from previous assessment years if there is no fresh credit in the relevant assessment year. Section 41(1) does not apply to acknowledged outstanding liabilities without actual remission or cessation.

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain
205 CTR 444 · 2006 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding trade creditors, especially when the genuineness of the purchases is accepted by the department.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra
301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court
47
citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

CIT v. Nitin S. Garg
208 Taxmann 16 · 2012 · High Court
47
citing judgments

A trading liability acknowledged and continued to be shown in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) merely because it remained outstanding for several years, unless the assessee has written it off in its books. The Assessing Officer must prove that the assessee obtained a benefit.

CIT v. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara
43 Taxmann.com 55 · 2014 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act applies only where there is remission or cessation of a trading liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, and not merely because the assessee cannot provide confirmations for sundry creditors.

CIT v. Padamchand Ramgopal
76 ITR 719 · 1970 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

Minor irregularities in books of account cannot be the sole basis for rejection of the books or for making an estimated trading addition, especially when the assessee has provided explanations for discrepancies. The case distinguishes itself by focusing on receipts not brought into account rather than expenses claimed.

CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja
325 ITR 593 · 2010 · High Court
39
citing judgments

A liability cannot be presumed to have ceased to exist merely because it has been outstanding for several years. Without a bilateral act between the assessee and the creditor indicating cessation, additions under section 41(1) are not permissible.

CIT v. Best Wood Industries and Saw Mills
11 Taxmann.com 278 · 2011 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Once an assessment is reopened for a valid reason under Section 148(2), the Assessing Officer can bring to tax any escaped income that comes to their notice during the reassessment, even if it was not the original basis for reopening.

Judgments citing sundry creditors

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 111, Surat vs. Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya बनाम/ Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), C-303, Afil Tower, L.H. Road, Vs. Surat, Room No.108, 1St Varachha, Surat-395 006 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afepm 7227 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

list, the CIT(A) observed that there ITA No.105/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Mukesh A Maniya had not been any change in the list of sundry creditors and amounts payable to such creditors as loan between 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017. The assessee admitted that he had taken only two additional loans ... received from Meenalbhai Bailar for Rs.24,00,000/- and Shri Sunil R. Mehta for Rs.3,00,000/-. The assessee also stated that the aggregate sundry creditors on account of unsecured loan had actually reduced from Rs.5,46,20,487/- as on 31.03.2016 to Rs.3

Sarjan Structure, Amreli vs. The DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 413/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.413/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Sarjan Structure, Vs. The Dcit/Acit-2(1) Shyam Shikhar Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Liliya Road, Course Ring Road, Amreli (Gujarat)– 365601 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acofs8085K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Bynational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 29/12/2019, U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. Sarjan Structure Amreli

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

action of the DC/ACIT Circle-3(1), Rajkot in making addition of Rs.1,08,048/-by way of alleged excess liability towards a sundry creditor, M/s Shivom Construction Pvt. Ltd. 3. On merits, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam erred in confirming the action of the DC/ACIT Circle ... further on verification of schedule -B of audited balance sheet for F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017- 18, noticed that assessee has shown sundry creditor against the name Shivom Construction Pvt Ltd at Rs. 9,37,507/-. However, on perusal of contra confirmation obtained from assessee, it is revealed

Kanvar Corporation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-50(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1683/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Kanvar Corporation, Vs Dcit, A-26, Basement & Ground Circle-50(1), Floor, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aalfk6427E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2016-17/10066962 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Passed U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ao, Nafac (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 270A

declared income at Rs.1,37,72,800/- and, after scrutiny assessment, addition of Rs.6,85,247/- was made on account of disallowance of sundry creditors which led to initiation of proceedings for misreporting the income and the AO had found that the alleged sundry creditors were not in existence ... levy of penalty u/s 270A were examined in the context of nature of disallowance and would the nature of disallowance on account of sundry creditors should result into levy 2 of penalty u/s 270A. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the files of the CIT(A) to pass

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the additions made for outstanding balance of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,81,84,845/- u/s 41(1) of the Act without providing any evidence that the said liability is no more ... were issued and duly served upon the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details regarding sundry creditors, import turnover, customs duty payments and sales turnover. The assessee submitted the required information relating to sales and customs duty mismatch. However, in relation