← 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

J. P. Mills, Balotra vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 317/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 J.P. Mills, Acit, C/O Ashok Kumar Bansal, Vs Central Circle-1, Chartered Accountant, Vijay Jodhpur Shanti Plaza, Near 2Nd Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022 Pan: Aaefj2921K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 19.02.2018, Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2013-14. Findings & Analysis 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. Ld.Ar Had Filed Paper Book Containing Copy Of The Details Submitted Before Lower Authorities. 3. In This Case, The Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs. 88,353/-. The Ao Observed That In Case Of Certain Creditors, Assessee Had Not Filed Pan Numbers. The List Of Creditors Is As Under:- J.P. Mills S.No. Name Of The Creditor Amount 1. Manoj Textile Mills 11,803/- 2. S.M. Energy Taknik & 22,936/- Electronics 3. Daulal Rathi 47,336/- 4. Kothari Textile Agency 2,348/- 5. Ramesh Kumar Jhunjhunu 2,978/- Wala 6. Sarita Textile Agency 209/- 7. Shiv Shakti Agency 1,283/- Total 88,353/-

Section 143(3)

Kothari Textile Agency Ramesh Kumar Jhunjhunu Wala Shiv Shakti Agency The assessee had filed copy of confirmations containing address of the entities. These were sundry creditors pertaining to the business of the assessee of earlier years. Once assessee had filed address of the creditors, the onus shifted

M/S Raja Bada, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 158/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.158/Rpr/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. M/S.Raja Bada, The Income Tax Officer-1(3), City Centre, Station Road, Bhilai. Farishta Complex, Durg, Chhattisgarh-491 001. [Pan: Aalfr 2169 J] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma

case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made by AO on account alleged bogus liability in the form of Sundry Creditors resulting due to the difference in the outstanding balance in the books of appellant and creditor. The addition made by AO and sustained ... raised. On perusal of such queries, the AO has observed that an amount of Rs.9,39,30,223/- has been shown under the head ‘sundry creditors’. The details of which were called for. The assessee submitted the details and on verification of those details, it was revealed that against