← 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

Vision Exports, Moradabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vision Exports, Vs Acit, Faridpur, Sambhal Road, Central Circle, Moradabad – 244 001, Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aajfv0634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ca; Shri Mohammad Ammar, Ca & Shri Tariq Nafees, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Lucknow-3/10314/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle, Moradabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

firm are looked after by brother Shri Danish Ali and he has no knowledge. Further, in response to question No.41 where list of sundry creditors and difference in cash was sought to be explained, it was replied by him specifically that Danish Ali only looked after all the accounts

Hmg Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3012/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3012/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Hmg Engineering Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito, Ward (1)(1)(4) 1St Floor, Bandukwala बिाम Income Tax Department, Building, 14 British Hotel 531A 5Th Floor, Aayakar Lane, Off B S Marg, Fort, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Maharashtra-400023 Road, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3226L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Krutarth K. Desai राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth K. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

total assessed income was determined at Rs. 23,04,668/- after making an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of sundry creditors. 5. Subsequently, vide a notice dated 19.03.2019 issued u/s 148 of the Act, the AO proposed to reopen the completed assessment. The reasons ... above mentioned all expenses should be disallowed considering its business activity during the year. In the balance sheet of the assessee company there were sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 7,75,16,107/- in A.Y.2012-13 which is huge amount, even though there was no business during the year under consideration

Sushil Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 22(2), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3482/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sushil Kumar Vs. Acit Shreeram Overseas Circle-22(2) 5520, Bastiharpull C. R. Building, Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aalpk5068M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac)’ For Short)- Delhi Dated 10/07/2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,99,530/- Made By The Ao 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)

been issued to the Assessee on 25/02/2024 by proposing the following additions:- S. Particulars Amount No. 1 Unsecured loans 5,74,76,559 2 Sundry creditors 7,74,13,954 13,48,90,513 3 Purchase from 13 parties 32,56,61,364 7. In response to the above show ... parties 3 Addition on account of purchase from 10 3,44,55,109 parties which were allegedly not in the list of sundry creditors. 9. The Assessee filed reply to the second Show Cause Notice on 16/03/2024 explaining that, none of the proposed addition are required as there were neither