Income Tax

Addition u/s 41(1) made on the ground of untraceable creditors-There was not cessation of liability-High Court

Addition u/s 41(1) made on the ground of untraceable creditors-the liability had not ceased or any advantage was taken. High Court upheld deletion made by ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2240 (2018) (03) HC

The Revenue was aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal  (ITAT) in deletion the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) for untraceable creditors.

The grievance of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had not filed any evidence before the Assessing Officer with regard to the actual existence of these liabilities or to show that the liabilities existed.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Section 141 are two folds; firstly, there should have been a cessation of the trading liability and secondly that some benefit in respect of the trade liability had been taken by the assessee. Whereas, there was nothing on record to show that there have been cessation of trading liability or that some benefits had been taken in respect of the trading liability by the assessee.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that out of total amount approximately 86% had still remained unrecoverable as the creditors were untraceable and in any event, it could not be said that the liability had ceased or that any advantage had been taken by the assessee on account of this.

The Hon’ble High Court also noted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had came to the conclusion that merely because creditor could not be traced on date when verification was made, is not a ground to conclude that there cessation of liability because cessation of liability has to be cessation in law, of debt to be paid by assessee to the creditor and, therefore, Section 41(1) of the Act could not have been invoked.

The appeal was dismissed.

 

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago