“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ram Patel, Sanawad vs. ITO Khargone, Khargone

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 133ASection 68

returned income of 11,26,380/-. 3.The learned CIT(A)erred in law and facts of the case and made an addition of Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs. 7,88,900/- by treating it as unexplained money u/s 68 of Income Tax Act 1961. The addition made is totally wrong

Ram Patel, Sanawad Khargone vs. ACIT Khandwa, Khandwa

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 133ASection 68

Rajeswari Konduri, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 563/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Rajeswari Konduri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. R/O. Plot No.23, Hacp Colony, Near Kharkhana, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500056. Pan : Aaypk8689B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/CIT(A) erred in carrying out an addition towards sundry creditors amounting to Rs.2,53,77,255. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/ CIT(A) erred in carrying out an addition towards sundry debtors ... have erred in ignoring the written submission as well as the information filed and carried out the addition in respect of Sundry Debtors and Sundry Creditors.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, who is an individual, filed her return of income on 25.07.2018 in response

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1288/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

Hyderabad Mutual Benefit Society (HMBS) but the assessee has not shown the same in its Balance-Sheet either under unsecured loans or sundry creditors. Hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said interest and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. Page 4 of 30 3.1. Thereafter, Assessing ... orders categorically gave a finding that “ the loan taken from HMBS is not reflected in the Balance Sheet either under unsecured loans or sundry creditors’. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Balance Sheet seen by the AO and the CIT(A) were different from the Balance Sheet being referred

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1287/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad vs. Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad

ITA 1265/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

against "income from blithess" which has been allowed by the A.O. 12 The assessee has paid interest of Rs 2,06 07,468/- to sundry creditors and brokerage of Rs.21,32,687/- to various parties. During the course of proceedings under section 263 of the Act, the assessee furnished list ... view. The same is appearing from the following observation : 12 The assessee has paid interest of Rs 2,06 07,468/- to sundry creditors and brokerage of Rs.21,32,687/- to various parties. During the course of proceedings under section 263 of the Act, the assessee furnished list

ACIT - 3(4), Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 482/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Jasbir S. Chouhan a/w

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

115BVII (2) of the Act. Sr. No. Nature of Income Amt (Rs.) 1. Excess Provisions/Sundry Credit Balances 62,85,16,392 2. Sundry creditors Written back 3,32,33,477 3. Sundry Receipts 28,42,44,559 The AO noticed that the assessee had opted for the ‘tonnage tax scheme ... Bombay. By referring the earlier order of assessment for assessment year 2007- 08 and 2008-09 the assessing officer has stated that claim of sundry creditors written back of Rs.19,58,670/- pertaining to pre-tonnage regime was taxable under the normal provision of the Act. 4. Similarly, in respect

Sh. Gurinder Makkar, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

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 ... deemed income u/ss 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act. 25. As far as the surrender of Rs.132 lacs made on account of sundry creditors and advances received from customers and Rs.198 lacs on account of gross profit on sale out of the books, both of them clearly

Aark Infosoft Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present 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 27.07.2023 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 Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

business or profession and the basis on which such amounts have been computed, and also disclosing the amounts of total sundry debtors, sundry creditors, stock-in-trade and cash balance as at the end of the previous year.” 15. It is abundantly clear therefore that as per law there

Mohammad Ibraheem Khatri, Khandwa vs. The ITO-1, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 388/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raomohammad Ibraheem Khatri Ito-1 (Prop. Pakeeza Collection) Khandwa 42, Sanjay Colony, Nagchoon Vs. Road Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bhrpk3840B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 115BSection 68

total income of the appellant out of cash deposited in his bank accounts during the demonetization period by doubting the genuineness of sundry creditors without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

S.P.Enterprises, Indore vs. The ACIT2(1), Indore

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

ITA 216/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.P. Enterprises Acit 2(1) Ug-9 Lokhandwala Complex Indore Gangali Square Ringh Road, Vs. Indore, Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ackfs0827M Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 145

report stage. 13. In the case of MC Puri vs. ACIT, 69 taxmann.com 313 (Chandigarh-ITAT) (2016) - where there was a book entry for sundry creditors, profit should be estimated at a little higher rate or a separate addition for creditors should have been made since the AO himself

Niamathulla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Koramangala

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

ITA 1127/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Niamathulla No.43/1, 1St Floor, Mtb Road Near Popular Auto Mobile Ito Vs. Kalasipalyam 560 002 Koramangala Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ahepn8663K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal, A.R. Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 17.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

were unverifiable. Before us, the ld. A.R. has filed following documents in support of assessee’s claim. a) Rental Agreement & Certificate b) List of Sundry Creditors c) Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account d) Kotak Bank statement (A/c No.142010090992) e) Kotak Bank account in assessee’s book f) Canara Bank

Sunil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-47(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2699/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 234BSection 68

sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.20,05,236/- on account of alleged difference in sundry creditors, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee in this appeal is in respect of sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.20,05,236 on account of difference in sundry creditors. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that the majority of the additions represent are opening balances, thus, there is no warrant

Varindavan Fabrics Private Limited, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3227/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Vrindavan Fabrics Private Ito Limited, Delhi Sanoli Bye Vs Ward – 5 Panipat Pass, Huda Sector-29 Panipat 132103 Pan No.Aaccv7480N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey,Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Dispute In The Present Appeal Is Confined To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.46,03,682/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly Stated The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 5,10,270/-. In Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Called Upon The Assessee To Furnish The Details Of Sundry Creditors & Trade Payables With Their Address, Pan Numbers Etc. Alleging That The Assessee Furnished The Details On 19.12.2019 I.E. At The Fag End Of The Year, Which Made Impossible Any Enquiry To Be Carried Out Regarding The Genuineness Of The Trade Payables, The Ao Added Back Trade Payables / Closing Balances In Respect Of Seven Parties Aggregating To Rs.46,03,682/-, By Treating It As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act. Though, The Assessee Contested The Aforesaid Addition Before Learned Commissioner Appeals, However, The Addition Was Sustained.

Section 68

income of Rs. 5,10,270/-. In course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) called upon the assessee to furnish the details of sundry creditors and trade payables with their address, PAN numbers etc. Alleging that the assessee furnished the details ... very much clear, incourse of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished all the details called for in relation to sundry creditors/ trade payables. Simply saying that the details were furnished by the assessee at the fag end of the year which made any enquiry impossible, the AO has added certain

M/S A.P. Knit Fab, Ludhiana vs. DCIT CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That During The Course Of Survey, No Other Income Was Noticed By The Department And, As Such, Taxing The Amount Offered As Deemed Income, Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Failed To Appreciate That At The Time Of Survey, It Was Agreed That The Applicant Shall Pay The Taxes On The Amount Offered

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

Delhi Traders, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(4), Bhopal

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Delhi Traders, Income-Tax Officer, G-2/119-A, Milestone, 2(4), 100 Complex, Trilanga, Bhopal बनाम/ Gulmohur Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aahfd 1362 P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv., Shri Gagan Tiwari & Shri Arun Dwivedi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Rameshwar Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, 48(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

ITA 841/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 841/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Rameshwar Shaw,....................................Appellant 12/5, Musalmanpara Lane, Banta, Howrah-711101 [Pan: Amaps0893D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-48(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

unfair, unreasonable and unlawful in not considering the fact that Ld.ITO had acted illegally in adding back the entire amount under the head of Sundry Creditors being a sum of Rs.20423945/- to declared income on the ground that it was found from reports that the sundry creditors were bogus ... appreciate that the Ld.A.O. had grossly violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the copies of reports based upon which the sundry creditors were declared bogus. 2 Rameshwar Shaw (6) For that all the sundry creditors are genuine and the amount due to few creditors were brought down

Raj Ansh Auto Wheels, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 813/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 69A

NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.15,17,621/-by treating the sundry creditors as unexplained on the ground that confirmation from sundry creditors is not furnished ignoring that these are trade creditors otherwise verifiable from the purchase bills and the customer statement ... thus, ground no. 1, is allowed. 7. Ground no. 2 pertains to the confirmation of the addition of Rs.15,17,621/- by treating the sundry creditors as unexplained on the ground that confirmation from sundry creditors is not furnished ignoring that these are trade creditors otherwise verifiable from the purchase

Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 898/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11 Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli #2035/148, Nutan Nilaya Ito 12Th Cross, Anjaneya Badavane Ward-1 Vs. Davanagere 577 005 Davangere Karnataka Pan No.Agepd9313P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Aparithivel, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Dated 29.9.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1: The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AParithivel, D.R

Section 142Section 234Section 250Section 68

learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.2,79,54,672/- towards sundry creditors as on 31/03/2010 on the ground that the identity and creditworthiness of the party and genuineness of the transactions are not proved without appreciating that ... fatal especially since the appellant had filed the ledger accounts Marulasidappa Gundagathi Dyamavvanahalli, Davangere Page 2 of 7 showing payments made to these sundry creditors through banking channels in the subsequent financial year under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned