← 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

Inderpal Singh Chhabra, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/CTK/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Inderpal Singh Chhabra Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela Prop: Essar Enterprises Daily Market, C/O Crazy Cool, Main Rd, Po/Ps : Rourkela, Dist : Sundargarh Pan No. :Ajlpc 6337 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Baidyanath Behera, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 04.09.2024 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068345718(1)), For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Transportation Of Coal & Trading In Coals. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Original Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed U/S.143(3) Of The Act By The Nfac & The Assessment Came To Be Completed On 10.02.2021 Accepting The Returned Income. Ld Ar Drew Our Attention To Page 3 Of The Paper Book

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri BaidyanathFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 206CSection 43B

paid (1) Rate of Interest (g) TDS deducted (h) Date of Payment of TDS 4 10. Please provide the list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors with name, address and PAN 11. Provide details of TDS deducted and deposited for relevant expenses debited to P&L account and also file ... Please provide the details of interest paid during the year. Please find attached. 4. Please provide the list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors with name, address and PAN. Please find attached list of sundry debtors and sundry creditors with name, address and PAN. 5. Provide details of TDS deducted

Sharda Rani Gupta L/H Late Hem Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 55(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2055/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2055/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Mrs Sharda Rani Gupta, L/H Late Hem Chand Gupta C/O Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, C.A, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aakpg-2688-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 29 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Was For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR and Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 254Section 68

assessee are the tax invoices, which can be issued by a VAT registered dealer in respective state. The bank statements of assessee and the sundry creditor show the remittance of part payment against the credit purchases shown by the assessee. 5. Since the assessee had proved the identity and genuineness ... There was no response to the notices issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Hence, the AO made addition of unverified sundry creditors. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has repaid M/s. Vaibhav Enterprises in April 2009 through banking channel and the same

Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO WD-2(1)(5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/RJT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68

attention and accepted the remand report considering that remand report is clear and convincing. We note that the books of account are duly audited. Sundry creditors shown in the books of account were considering as cash creditor. While making the assessment and the depreciation was disallowed on the ground

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Arul Raja, Tuticorin

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2845/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2845/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Arul Raja, Income Tax, V. 43J, Saint Peter Koil Street, Central Circle -2, Tuticorin – 628 001. Madurai – 625 002. [Pan: Aevpr-9611-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 09.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.67,96,000/- Made Towards Unexplained Money U/S.69A. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Statement Made By The Assessee That The Source For The Cash· Was Withdrawals From Banks As A Plausible Explanation In The Absence Of Proof Evidencing The Transactions & Wrongly Observed That Burden Of Proof Shifted To The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

also not furnished any ledger for the cash purchases shown to the tune of Rs.14,14,850/-, as stated in the reconciliation statement for sundry creditors submitted before the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that ... Hence, the assessee had the time to make the records as per the requirement. 42. In view of the above, the unexplained liability towards sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.72,26,450/- is treated as undisclosed income on account of unexplained liability u/s 69A r.w.s

Shanti Devi Kushwaha, Bharatpur vs. ACIT, Circle -4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

The appeal stand partly allowed as indicated upon conclusion of hearing

ITA 33/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 33/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Shanti Devi Kushwaha Acit-Circle-4(2)(1) बनाम/ C-162, Ranjeet Nagar Farukhabad Vs. Bharatpur, Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Dpbpk-5044-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 27-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 13-11-2019. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee & Accordingly, The Appeal Was Proceeded With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal. 2. It Could Be Seen That The Assessment Has Been Framed On Best Judgment Basis. The Assessee Was Engaged In Civil Contract Work & It Failed To Produce Its Books Of Accounts Before Ld. Ao. Accordingly

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 68

books of accounts before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the books were rejected and business income was estimated @8% of contractual receipts. The assessee reflected sundry creditors of Rs.14.15 Lacs which were separately added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further