← 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

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Assessing Officer had passed a contradictory order by making addition u/s 68 holding that books of accounts were not reliable, while deciding issue of sundry creditors, but relied upon for accepting profit shown to be correct which was supported by books of accounts, addition u/s 68 was not justified ... submitted that the assessee- assessee discharged all its obligations to justify the entries made in the books of account showing the credit balance as sundry creditors amounts of 12 persons by disclosing the identity of those persons who supplied the materials to the assessee and admittedly the assessee

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Assessing Officer had passed a contradictory order by making addition u/s 68 holding that books of accounts were not reliable, while deciding issue of sundry creditors, but relied upon for accepting profit shown to be correct which was supported by books of accounts, addition u/s 68 was not justified ... submitted that the assessee- assessee discharged all its obligations to justify the entries made in the books of account showing the credit balance as sundry creditors amounts of 12 persons by disclosing the identity of those persons who supplied the materials to the assessee and admittedly the assessee

Sunil Mohanlal Lahori, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Incomt Tax -22(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

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

ITA 283/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Mohanlal Lahori, Dy. Cit-22(1), 9, Janta Industrial Income Tax Office, Piramal Compound, 162 Senapati Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400012. (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaapl 4422 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54FSection 68

dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors grounds of appeal related to addition of sundry creditors under under under section section section ... erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,54,47473/ CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,54,47473/- on account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of account of increase of sundry creditors under section 68 of Income