Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether unsecured loans outstanding for more than three years could be treated as income under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the liability had ceased or been remitted.
Analysis: The addition was founded on the view that expiry of the limitation period for recovery and absence of repayment or legal proceedings showed cessation of liability. The appellate authority found that the loans were duly recorded in the books, confirmations from creditors were on record, and the loans had been raised in earlier years for obtaining bank credit limits. It further held that mere expiry of the limitation period only bars the remedy to sue and does not by itself extinguish the underlying debt or establish remission or cessation. The Revenue did not bring material to show that the creditors had abandoned the claim or that the liabilities had finally ceased. The Tribunal agreed with this reasoning and also noted that the amounts were not trading liabilities for the purpose of section 41(1).
Conclusion: The addition under section 41(1) was rightly deleted and the disallowance was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Expiry of limitation for recovery of a debt does not by itself amount to cessation or remission of liability so as to attract section 41(1) unless there is evidence that the liability has in fact been abandoned or finally ceased.