← 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

Navudai Shikshan and Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

that the assessee had submitted its return in the capacity of a society hence it could not claim depreciation. The issue of unsecured loans, sundry creditors and addition to fixed assets could only be verified with enquiry and AO had not made the enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings ... furnished. Our attention was invited to pages 23 to 27 of the paper book in which the list of students’ fees, the list of sundry creditors and the list of loans and advances was furnished to the ITO (Exemption). Our attention was also invited to pages 28 to 31 which

Shri Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Lucknow vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-III, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 122/LKW/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

filed the cross appeals. 5. Ground no. 1 of Revenue appeal is related to the deletion of addition which was made on account of sundry creditors. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors by filing the supporting ... observing as under: - “5.5. Thus out of 14 notices u/s 133(6) issued by the AO replies were not received in case of 5 Sundry Creditors and in two cases there were slight differences, In case of 5 persons who did not respond it has been verified from the bank

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Agarwal, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 410/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

filed the cross appeals. 5. Ground no. 1 of Revenue appeal is related to the deletion of addition which was made on account of sundry creditors. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors by filing the supporting ... observing as under: - “5.5. Thus out of 14 notices u/s 133(6) issued by the AO replies were not received in case of 5 Sundry Creditors and in two cases there were slight differences, In case of 5 persons who did not respond it has been verified from the bank