2017 (12) TMI 252 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 41 - cessation of liability - Held that - To attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Act, the revenue has to either show that such liability has in fact ceased to exist or that the assessee has written off such liability in his accounts. In the facts of the present case the assessee continues to acknowledge the liability in his accounts and there is nothing to show that on account of lapse of time the liability has ceased to exist. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in holding that it cannot be said that the liability has ceased and deleting the addition ADMIT. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 23,04,369/- by considering the same to be service tax? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 53,600/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs,1,95,250/- on account of addition made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Issues:
1. Addition of ?23,04,369/- as service tax
2. Addition of ?53,600/- under section 40(a)(ia)
3. Addition of ?1,95,250/- under section 40A(3)
4. Addition of ?33,85,907/- under section 41(1)

Issue 1: Addition of ?23,04,369/- as service tax

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of ?23,04,369/- by considering it as service tax. The appellant challenged this decision, questioning whether the ITAT was justified in its deletion. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the liability in question had not ceased to exist as the assessee continued to acknowledge it in their accounts. Since there was no evidence to show that the liability had ceased due to the passage of time, the Tribunal held that the addition was unwarranted. The Tribunal's decision was based on the requirement that either the liability must have ceased to exist or the assessee must have written it off in their accounts to attract the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was upheld, and no legal question was found to arise on this issue.

Issue 2: Addition of ?53,600/- under section 40(a)(ia)

The ITAT also deleted the addition of ?53,600/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested this deletion, questioning the justification of the ITAT's decision. However, detailed reasoning or findings regarding this specific addition were not provided in the summary of the judgment.

Issue 3: Addition of ?1,95,250/- under section 40A(3)

Similarly, the ITAT deleted the addition of ?1,95,250/- on account of an addition made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant challenged this deletion as well, questioning the justification of the ITAT's decision. However, detailed reasoning or findings regarding this specific addition were not provided in the summary of the judgment.

Issue 4: Addition of ?33,85,907/- under section 41(1)

The Assessing Officer added ?33,85,907/- to the income of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. This addition was based on the verification of ledger accounts showing certain balances pending for a long time. The AO believed that no party would wait indefinitely for payment, especially for a substantial due amount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT, however, held that section 41(1) applies when a trading liability allowed as a deduction in a previous year is later remitted or ceases. The Tribunal noted that since the liability was still acknowledged in the accounts and not written off, it could not be considered as ceased. The Tribunal's decision was based on the requirement that the liability must have ceased or been written off to attract section 41(1). Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was upheld, and no legal question was found to arise on this issue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the reasoning behind the decisions made by the ITAT and the subsequent challenges raised by the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of meeting specific legal requirements and evidentiary standards to support claims and additions in tax matters.

← Previous Next →