Case Law Details
Satpal & Sons (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Authorized Representative further submitted that all the above creditors are outstanding from F.Y. 2008-09 and no any transactions have been made since then. The assessing officer has alleged that the creditors are outstanding in the books of account for more than 3 years, therefore, as per limitation of three years in respect of liability, such liabilities would stand ceased. It was submitted that these creditors have been paid in the subsequent years through banking channel and therefore, the assessing officer was not justified in making the addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 7-11-2014 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, the assessee has also filed a stay petition seeking stay of the outstanding demand. The grounds raised in appeal read as under :–
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 90,36,451 on account of sundry creditors under section 41(1), inter alia by treating as cessation of liability and that too in the year under appeal and without discharging the burden as per law and without considering the submissions of assessee and without considering the correct provisions of law. 2
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the action of learned assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 90,36,451 under section 41(1) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
