Rajiv and Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Lucknow and another
[Citation -2017-LL-0511-66]

Citation 2017-LL-0511-66
Appellant Name  Rajiv and Company
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax , Lucknow and another
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/05/2017
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags sundry creditor • credit-worthiness of creditor
Bot Summary: Learned counsel for appellant confined his challenge in respect to ground No.2 before Tribunal, i.e., addition of Rs. 2,17,03,387/ on account of sundry creditors made by Assessing Officer but Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow deleted aforesaid addition, which has been reversed by Tribunal restoring order of Assessing Authority. Assessing Officer required the names, addresses and copies of accounts of such sundry creditors which could not be supplied by Assessee 2 and, thereafter, Assessing Officer made addition of said amount but it was deleted by CIT A on the basis that opening balance of unpaid liability of material and labour, etc. It may be that the payments in the present year of Rs.1519.70 lacs has liquidated the entire amount of opening balance of Rs.217.03 lacs and the entire amount of closing balance of Rs.277.01 lacs is in respect of amount credited in the present year without disclosing the name of the creditors and their identity etc. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, the order of CIT(A) is not sustainable because Assessee has 3 not been able to establish the names, addresses and identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and therefore, we reverse the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. We are aware that there are certain judgments which say that creditors of goods or expenses cannot be added u/s 68 but in the present case, the Assessee has not established this also that the creditors are for goods or expenses and mere crediting the amounts in the account with the nomenclature Creditors for material and labour etc. As per copy available on pages 47 to 64 of the paper book does not establish the contention that there are creditors for goods and/ or expenses particularly in the absence of name and address of the said creditors. Once huge amount of Rs. 277.01 lacs and odd shown towards sundry creditors could not be verified by Assessee by producing relevant documents, Tribunal has rightly allowed addition thereof and its finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse or contrary to record, in our view, would not give rise to any substantial question of law.


1 Court No. 3 Case : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 67 of 2016 Appellant : M/s. Rajiv and Company, through its Partner Sri Rajiv Tandon Respondent : Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and another Counsel for Appellant : Mukteshwar Mishra,F. Ahmad Counsel for Respondent : Manish Misra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar II,J. 1. Heard Shri Fuzail Ahmad, Advocate assisted by Shri Mukteshwar Mishra, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Alok Mathur for respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1961') has arisen from judgment and order dated 03.02.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'B', Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Income Tax Appeal No. 368/LKW/2014 relating to Assessment Year 2010 11. 3. Learned counsel for appellant confined his challenge in respect to ground No.2 before Tribunal, i.e., addition of Rs. 2,17,03,387/ on account of sundry creditors made by Assessing Officer but Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as, 'CIT A') deleted aforesaid addition, which has been reversed by Tribunal restoring order of Assessing Authority. 4. He contended that in previous year on 31.03.2010 sundry creditors' amount was shown as Rs. 2,20,87,655/ . Assessing Officer required names, addresses and copies of accounts of such sundry creditors which could not be supplied by Assessee 2 and, thereafter, Assessing Officer made addition of said amount but it was deleted by CIT on basis that opening balance of unpaid liability of material and labour, etc., of Rs. 2,17,03,387/ cannot be treated unpaid liability in hands of Assessee during previous year. He said that Tribunal erred in allowing aforesaid addition in Assessment Year in question, i.e., 2010 11. 5. However, we find no force in submission, in as much as, this aspect has been considered by Tribunal and its findings are as under : "On page No. 47 of paper book is open balance as on 01/04/2009 of Rs.2,17,03,381/ and there are debits and credits but even in ledger account, no name is available as to on whose account liability is increasing and payments are made in cash on various dates without giving names as to whom payment is made. credits are with narration, purchase of contract materials, labour and wages etc. and debit is by mentioning narration such as cash or Bank of Baroda (CC). It may be that payments in present year of Rs.1519.70 lacs has liquidated entire amount of opening balance of Rs.217.03 lacs and entire amount of closing balance of Rs.277.01 lacs is in respect of amount credited in present year without disclosing name of creditors and their identity etc. and under these facts, in our considered opinion, order of CIT(A) is not sustainable because Assessee has 3 not been able to establish names, addresses and identity and creditworthiness of creditors and therefore, we reverse order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of Assessing Officer. We are aware that there are certain judgments which say that creditors of goods or expenses cannot be added u/s 68 but in present case, Assessee has not established this also that creditors are for goods or expenses and mere crediting amounts in account with nomenclature "Creditors for material and labour etc." as per copy available on pages 47 to 64 of paper book does not establish contention that there are creditors for goods and/ or expenses particularly in absence of name and address of said creditors. Hence, we reverse order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of A.O. Accordingly, ground No.2 is allowed." 6. Findings of facts have been recorded by Tribunal. Once huge amount of Rs. 277.01 lacs and odd shown towards sundry creditors could not be verified by Assessee by producing relevant documents, Tribunal has rightly allowed addition thereof and its finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse or contrary to record, in our view, would not give rise to any substantial question of law. 7. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date : 11.5.2017 Mustaqeem RajivandCompany v. CommissionerofIncome-tax , Lucknowandanother
Report Error