Having held that the sundry creditors are not payable and fictitious, the next question that comes up for our consideration is the year in which the amount is taxable under what provisions of law either under Section 41(1) or 68 of the Act. We are required to examine whether this amount should be brought to tax in the year in which credit was made first time in the books of account or in the year in which these are found not payable. An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara in Tax Appeal No. 588 of 2013, dated 04.02.2013, in which it was held that that even if the debt itself is found to be non-genuine from the very inception there was no cessation or remission of liability and that therefore, the amount in question cannot be added back as a deemed income under section 41(1) of the Act. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), has dealt with the issues of taxability under section 41(1) of the Act in a case where long outstanding sundry creditors were treated as taxable. The High Court after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT(Chief) Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 434(SC) and CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC, has held that such amounts cannot be brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (supra) held that a unilateral action cannot bring about a cessation or remission of the liability because a remission can be granted only by the creditor and a cessation of the liability can only occur either by reason of operation of law or the debtor unequivocally declaring his intention not to honour his liability when payment is demanded by the creditor, or by a contract between the parties, or by discharge of the debt. (ii) Applying the ratio in the cases mentioned supra, the amount in question cannot be brought to tax in the year under appeal under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. It is trite law that an addition under Section 68 can be made only in the year in which credit was made to the account of the creditors in the books of account maintained. Kindly refer to the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar Hansraj Vs. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 427 (SC). Admittedly, in this case the credit to the account of creditors was made in the earlier years and therefore, the amount even cannot be brought to tax under Section 68 in the year under appeal. However, it is open to the Department to levy tax on such amount by resorting to the remedies available under the provisions of Act by duly following the procedure known to the law.

Cheil India Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

The ITAT directed that the assessee be granted sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidence used by the Assessing Officer regarding the addition of Rs.89,39,92,188 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged short receipts declared in the profit and loss account violating the principles of natural justice. In compliance, the Assessing Officer made the assessment on the issue afresh under sec. 254 read with 143(3) of the Act making the addition of Rs.4,55,41,557 out of Rs.89,39,92,188 which was questioned before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) not only upheld the addition of Rs.04,55,41,557 made on account of short receipts declared in profit and loss account but enhanced the income by directing the Assessing Officer to disallow payments made by the assessee under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee claimed that by directing the Assessing Officer to make the disallowance of payments made by the assessee under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) has introduced in the assessment a new source of income, which is not allowed in an assessment which was made by the Assessing Officer strictly in compliance of the order of the ITAT for reconsideration of addition of Rs.89,39,92,188 after examining the evidence and upholding opportunity of being heard to the assessee. HELD by the Tribunal:

(i) The direction to the Assessing Officer by the CIT(Appeals) to disallow payments made by the assessee under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act was a question of taxability of income from a new source of income which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, hence it was exceeding of jurisdiction by the CIT(Appeals) in a set aside matter by the ITAT in the present case. Though the CIT(Appeals) has co-terminus powers as of the Assessing Officer and is empowered to do what an Assessing Officer can do for the assessment, the directed disallowance was new source of income, which was not the subject matter of setting aside order by the ITAT, in compliance of which assessment under sec. 254 read with section 143(3) was framed.

(ii) The power of the CIT(Appeals) to set aside assessment, which does not involve a proposal for enhancement cannot be used for the purpose of expending the whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under sec. 147/148 of the Act and section 263 of the Act, if requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is inconceivable that in the presence of such specific provisions, a similar power is available to the appellate authority (CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. – 251 ITR 864 (Del) followed).