← 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

Mafaji Umedaji Jat, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 940/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mafaji Umedaji Jat The Income Tax Officer At Rampura बनाम/ Ward-1 Po Rampura, Tal.Deesa Palanpur 385 001 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 535 Dist. Banaskantha (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akipj 4846 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/09/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 R.W.S.144 Read With Mafaji Umedaji Jat Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

assessee in Salasar Balaji Cold Storage, there is also unsecured loan of Rs.10,01,843/- from Salasar Balaji Cold Storage and Sundry Creditors of Rs.40,99,915/-. The AO asked for establishing source along with documentary evidence. 2.2. The Assessee explained that he was doing agricultural activities and trading ... pledge loan that assessee had taken from Salasar Balaji Cold Storage for warehousing of potatoes in the cold storage. He also submitted that sundry creditors of Rs. 40, 99,915/- is for potato purchase from farmers and he can submit the Land records and KYC of all the Farmers

Progressive Alloys(India) Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 20(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3510/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaprogressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 20 (1), 307, Express Tower, N.S. Mandi, Delhi. North West Delhi, Delhi – 110 033. (Pan : Aagcp1584M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepanshu Singla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 12.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 30.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Order Dated 02.08.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Generated Vide Din: Itbainfac/S/250/2023-24/054820030(1), Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Determining The Total Income At Rs.8,53,03,474/- In Place Of Returned Income As Returned By The Assessee Is Bad In Law On Account Of Several Grounds & Assessee/Appellant Denies Its Liability To Be Assessed For Any Income Other Than The Income Already Returned By The Assessee & The Consequential Demand Of Rs.4,61,05,193/-.

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147oSection 148Section 250

much as in fact while passing the impugned assessment order, as the Ld. AO' have made addition on account of unverified sundry creditors, whereas the Ld. AO have failed to appreciate the fact that during the A Y under consideration the assessee has done more business as compared to previous