← 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

Bijender Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Panipat

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6775/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma(Through Hybrid Mode) (A.Y: 2013-14) & [Penalty Appeal U/S 271(1)(C)] (A.Y: 2013-14)

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

reconciled as assessee’s expenses under different heads as mentioned are far more. 5.1 The fact that learned AO has picked correct figures of sundry creditors of Rs. 5,22,614/- and unsecured loan of Rs. 4,55,800/-, it is established that financials were available with the learned

Namdeo Indarrao Gore, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 Pune, Pune

ITA 1397/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1397/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Namdeo Indarrao Gore, The Dy.Commissioner Of Subhadra Cme Engineers, V Income Tax, Plot No.1, Subhadra House, S Circle-5, Pune. Nanded Phata, Maharashtra – 411041. Pan: Aavpg0671L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Ar Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.10.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2015-16 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.30,71,906/- U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Of Unpaid Sundry Creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

erred in confirming an addition of Rs.30,71,906/- u/s 41(1) of the income Tax Act on account of unpaid sundry creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A] 2. without prejudice to above, The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) may please be directed to delete that the addition ... Rs.30,71,796/-. The relevant paragraph 4 of the assessment order is reproduced here as under: 2 Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A] “4. Disallowance of Sundry Creditors of Rs 30.71.796/- During the year under consideration, on perusal of the Balance Sheet, it is seen that the assessee has shown liability

Mrs. Kiran Bala, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

response to the ld. CIT(A)’s notice u/s 250, the assessee was submitting before the ld. CIT(A), copies of the slips of sundry creditors, against which, income had been ITA 254/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2019-20 15 surrendered during survey, the statement recorded during the survey and the Power ... earlier part of our order: (i) investment of Rs. 60 lacs in Kothi at Sukhmani Enclave in the name of Smt. Rekha Miglani; (ii) Sundry creditors and advances received from customers amounting to Rs. 132 lacs; (iii) Gross profit on sale out of books amounting to Rs. 198 lacs

Ashram Educational Society, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 54/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

computation of total income for the Assessment year 2021-22. The Ld. AO also asked the assessee to furnish the confirmation letters from sundry creditors relating to the financial year 2020- 2021. However, the assessee has not furnished the confirmation letters from the sundry creditors. The assessee has filed ... very low PBDIT to turnover ratio. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee has not furnished the confirmation letters from the sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 33,49,752/- reflected in the balance sheet and therefore the Ld. AO disallowed Rs. 33,49,752/- as unexplained expenditure

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 61/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

made couple of other additions amounting to Rs.6,65,670/- representing labour expenses and Rs.1,16,62,097/- representing unexplained liability on account of sundry creditors and unexplained purchases. 10. Contesting the aforesaid additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. First Appellate Authority. Based on submissions made in course

Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 951/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

made couple of other additions amounting to Rs.6,65,670/- representing labour expenses and Rs.1,16,62,097/- representing unexplained liability on account of sundry creditors and unexplained purchases. 10. Contesting the aforesaid additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. First Appellate Authority. Based on submissions made in course

Anirudha Harihar Mandal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Veena Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr K C Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

assessee, which inter alia includes (i) disallowance of depreciation claimed against additions to plant & machinery (ii) unexplained unsecured loans/credits (iii) unexplained additions to sundry creditors (iv) disallowance of expenses of payment on which TCS claimed (v) disallowance of other expense etc. Whereas, in an appeal, the Ld. NFAC confirmed these

Ganni Satyavani, Kurellagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 297/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.297/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ganni Satyavani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kurellagudem. Ward-2, Pan: Bukpg 4038 H Eluru. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 22/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

occasions by way of RTGS from M/s. Godrej Agrovet Limited and the balance credits are received from the other sundry creditors and therefore the Ld. AR pleaded to set-aside the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR heavily relied on the orders ... concerned the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to show that this amount was received from the sundry creditors nor produced 6 any details of the sundry creditors. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee has not given proper source for the credit entries and accordingly

Mohsin Enterprises Private Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officr, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

assessee was asked to furnish the evidence of the expenses and also the confirmation letters from sundry creditors and their income tax returns. In response the Assessee’s Representative submitted the information and after considering the submissions made by the Assessee’s Representative, did not satisfy with the replies given

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

case the action of the CIT(A) confirm the addition made by the AO of Rs.25,33,00,386/- on account of sundry creditors u/s 41(1) of the Act is contrary to the material evidences of record and the addition is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 2 I.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 ... loss from sale of shares at Rs.6,34,50,000/- and addition u/s 41(1) of the Act for cessation of liability towards sundry creditors at Rs.25,33,00,386/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but vide order dt. 27/03/2018, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

course of survey proceedings, the Assessing Officer 3 I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/23 & C.O. No.54/Chny/23 has observed that the assessee was unable to produce the details of sundry creditors. Even during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was not able to submit the details of sundry creditors. Since no explanation was offered ... Appellant on 06.02.2018. During the course of survey a statement was recorded from the Appellant. In the statement the Appellant while clarifying the Sundry Creditors of Rs.7,46,45,937/- (claimed in the Return of Income relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18) admitted that out of Rs.7

Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Income-Tax Officer, 45, Jay Nagar Society, Ward-6(1)(1), B/H. Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahmedabad Rambaug, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 Pan : Abopm 4792 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,55,000/- Being Cash Deposited In The Bank Account Under Section 69A Inasmuch As The Cash Deposited Is Out Of Cash On Hand [Which Is Out Of Cash Sales & Cash Withdrawn] From The Business & That The Entire Amount Is From Explained Sources.” Rajesh Hariram Mohta Vs. Ito Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

filed copy of Return of Income, P&L account, Balance Sheet, Audit Report, VAT returns, Statement of Total Income, Bank Statements, Ledger of Sundry Creditors Parties & Cash-book. After stating so, the order notes that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee asking

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Kondapur vs. Green View Upvc Doors and Windows Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 373/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 1Section 41

income of Rs. 2,58,570/-. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer found that in the relevant assessment year, the assessee shown sundry creditors / trade payables at Rs. 3,20,45,062/- in the Balance Sheet and requested the assessee to furnish the details of sundry creditors amounting ... Rs.3,20,45,062/- with documentary evidences. On the ground that the assessee did not furnish any such information, the sundry creditors / trade payables were treated as not genuine and treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer accordingly

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

Trading and profit and loss account with last two years and justify your trading results. 9. Please file duly confirmed copy of accounts of sundry creditors and Advance received against sales/services in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a chart showing PAN, addresses and the balances in the account ... each Page 9 of 23 M/s. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore. Vs. PCIT-2, Indore. ITA No. 339/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 sundry creditors as on the last day of previous year in last three years, to justify the non-applicability of provisions of section 41(1).” (c) Paper-Book Page

Aim Credit Capital Pvt Ltd, Paschim Midnapore vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Aim Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, Purnima Complex 4(3), Kolkata. Vill-Maheshwaripur, Ps Salboni, Vs. P.O. Syedpur, Paschim Midnapore, West Bengal-721147. (Pan: Aacca2464R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT
Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Shadawal Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Office of the CIT (A)-3, Thane

ITA 4/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Income Tax (Appeals) { in short “Ld. Commissioner” }, however may be inadvertently not decided the issue/ground relating to disallowance of Rs. 14,00,000/- qua sundry creditors, which was taken before the Hon’ble bench by filling a petition dated 06-07-2023 . It is pertinent to note that the above ... case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of alleged un-explained sundry creditors for land, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. We have perused the Assessment Order, wherein on perusal of the submissions

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans Verification of sundry creditors and payments made to the partners is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That ... vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That further finding that "the AO has failed to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry creditors and also the observation that "AO has not called for any ledger documents and confirmation of accounts of the sundry creditors"; However

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans Verification of sundry creditors and payments made to the partners is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That ... vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That further finding that "the AO has failed to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry creditors and also the observation that "AO has not called for any ledger documents and confirmation of accounts of the sundry creditors"; However

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans Verification of sundry creditors and payments made to the partners is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That ... vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That further finding that "the AO has failed to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of sundry creditors and also the observation that "AO has not called for any ledger documents and confirmation of accounts of the sundry creditors"; However

M/S. Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Baiaji Enterprises though NEFT on the last day of financial year i.e. 31.03.2010 and balance amount is shown as sundry creditors. Taking all the above into consideration and in the light of AO’s finding I am convinced that AO has made enquiries to bring on record sufficient material ... Balaji Enterprises though NEFT on the last day of financial year i.e. 7 Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2010 and balance amount is shown as sundry creditors. On verification of the record, it was found that while payment of Rs.9,95,537/- through cheque to M/s Ganpati Trading