2016 (9) TMI 383 - AT - Income Tax

Addition U/S 41(1) - Held that - From the assessment order, it does not appear that the credit amounting to Rs.,2,81,138/- and the alleged capital receipt amounting to ₹ 3.70 crores has ceased to exist. The contention of the assessee regarding the amounts not being considered in the books of accounts, needs verification for application of Section 41(1) of the Act. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification whether the amounts relating to sundry creditors has been considered in the books of account

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?2,81,138/- made under Section 41(1) for sundry creditors.
2. Addition of ?3.70 crores by treating the waiver of loan as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?2,81,138/- under Section 41(1) for Sundry Creditors:

The assessee contested the addition of ?2,81,138/- made under Section 41(1) for sundry creditors, arguing that the liability to pay the same is neither disputed nor written off in the books. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had observed that the amount was outstanding for several years and considered it as a cessation of liability, thus taxable under Section 41(1). The assessee argued that the amount had not ceased to exist and was still reflected in the books, with litigation pending for settlement. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not verify whether the amount was considered in the books of accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the A.O. for verification of whether the sundry creditors' amount was considered in the books, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

2. Addition of ?3.70 Crores by Treating Waiver of Loan as Revenue Receipt:

The assessee argued that the addition of ?3.70 crores, treated as a revenue receipt by the A.O., should be considered a capital receipt. The assessee explained that the amount was a loan provided by Mr. Panchal Singh Sachthep, which was kept as fixed deposits used for overdraft facilities. The A.O. considered the waiver of this loan as a cessation of liability and thus taxable as revenue receipt. The assessee contended that the loan was neither a trading liability nor had any expenditure been claimed against it, and it was settled as part of an arrangement with the bank.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and noted that the A.O. had not verified whether the amount was reflected in the books of accounts. The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of whether the amount was a revenue or capital receipt required verification of its treatment in the books. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the A.O. for verification, allowing this ground for statistical purposes as well.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, directing the A.O. to verify whether the amounts related to sundry creditors and the loan waiver were considered in the books of accounts. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes, with the issues remanded back to the A.O. for further verification.