2025 (8) TMI 1689 - AT - Income Tax

Additions Under Section 68 Deleting Outstanding Creditors Disallowed Where Identity, Creditworthiness And Payments Are Proven

Shiv Hari Singla Versus ITO, Ward-1 (1), Faridabad

ITAT (DELHI) held that additions under section 68 disallowing outstanding balances against four creditors must be deleted. The AO had accepted the ... Bogus purchases - balance outstanding in the name of four creditors held as paper entities - HELD THAT:- AO doubted the creditors against the purchases and made the addition of the entire amount outstanding against the purchases at the year end with these four creditors, however, he did not point out any mistake in the books of account maintained by the assessee in regular course of business and not doubted method of accounting employed regularly. AO did not alleged any suppressed sale nor doubted the purchases and accepted the material so purchased as consumed.AO did not rebut the contention of assessee that liability against the purchase had been paid in the succeeding year in some cases and in other case the creditor had already sued against the assessee for the recovery. When AO accepted the purchases and the trading results and has not disturbed the profit declared, there was no occasion to doubt the corresponding outstanding against such purchases. The allegation of ld. CIT(A) that the assessee might have purchases the goods from somewhere though accepting the consumption of the said material, purely was assumption without any supporting evidences. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, assessee has been able to establish the existence i.e. identity of the four suppliers alleged as bogus and also their creditworthiness was established more particularly when the purchases made from them was treated as genuine thus, provisions of section 68 could not be invoked to hold the outstanding balance against such purchases as unexplained. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether outstanding balances shown against four sundry creditors can be treated as unexplained cash credits under the applicable law where purchases from those creditors were accepted by the revenue and trading results were not disputed. 2. What is the evidentiary burden on the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of alleged 'paper' creditors and whether documentary and corroborative evidence (ledgers, invoices, VAT returns, transport documents, confirmations/affidavits, partial bank payments, and recovery proceedings) suffice to discharge that burden. 3. Whether an assessing officer (AO) may invoke the provisions relating to unexplained cash credits in relation to outstanding trade liabilities at year-end when books of account, method of accounting, purchases and consumption of material are accepted and profit/trading results are not disturbed. 4. Whether mere non-appearance of suppliers before AO or CIT(A) (or initial difficulties in service of notices) justifies treating suppliers as non-existent and making additions on suspicion alone. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of treating year-end outstanding trade creditors as unexplained cash credits when purchases and trading results are accepted Legal framework: The statutory scheme permits additions under provisions dealing with unexplained cash credits where a taxpayer fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of credits. However, trade creditors and outstanding liabilities, when supported by accepted purchases and undisputed trading results, raise distinct considerations because s.68 (and analogous provisions) addresses unexplained cash credits rather than bona fide trade payables. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal referred to coordinate and higher court decisions which held that where books/accounts and trading results are accepted and purchases are not doubted, additions under unexplained credit provisions are not justified (examples applied from jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether AO had rejected books of account, disputed the purchases or disturbed trading profit. Finding none, the Court reasoned that AO's decision to add the outstanding balances rested on suspicion without any positive material contradicting the purchases consumed. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO neither alleged suppressed sales nor impugned accounting methodology; hence treating trade payables as unexplained credits was legally inappropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where AO accepts purchases and trading results and does not impugn books or accounting method, outstanding balances relating to those purchases cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits without contrary material. Obiter - general observations on policy of examining sellers are ancillary but consistent with ratio. Conclusion: Addition under unexplained cash credits for the entire outstanding balance against the four creditors was not warranted and must be deleted. Issue 2: Nature and sufficiency of evidence required from assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness of alleged paper creditors Legal framework: Burden lies on assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness of creditors when AO doubts their existence; documentary evidences, confirmations, tax returns, transport documentation and payment records are principal means of discharge. Precedent Treatment: Decisions cited by the Tribunal support that corroborative documentary evidence (ledgers, invoices, VAT returns, transport challans, confirmations and banking records) can be sufficient to rebut presumption of bogus creditors, and mere non-appearance of seller before revenue does not automatically render supplier non-existent. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court catalogued the materials produced - supplier and assessee ledger copies, invoices, outward challans/Form ST-38 evidencing movement of goods, VAT returns of suppliers and purchaser, notarized affidavits/confirmations, replies to statutory notices, partial/full payments through banking channels and recovery suit/notice by suppliers. The AO and CIT(A) had opportunities (including remand proceedings) to verify but failed to point to any contradiction in these records. The Tribunal found that these items, taken together, discharged the evidentiary burden and that the AO did not rebut them with counter-material. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a combination of contemporaneous documents and corroborative evidence (as above) will suffice to establish existence and creditworthiness of suppliers for purposes of refuting additions under unexplained credits, absent contrary material by the revenue. Obiter - emphasis that each case depends on factual matrix and quality of evidence. Conclusion: The assessee discharged the burden of proof; the suppliers' existence and creditworthiness were established and the outstanding balances could not be treated as unexplained. Issue 3: Relevance of supplier non-cooperation or procedural difficulties in service of notices to sustain additions Legal framework: Administrative difficulties (failed service, closed shops) are probative but not conclusive; courts/tribunals require positive material to convert suspicion into addition. Principles of natural justice and fair opportunity to produce evidence govern remand and verification processes. Precedent Treatment: Authorities relied upon indicate that non-appearance of suppliers alone cannot support adverse inference where substantial documentary/corroborative evidence exists and purchases/trading results accepted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that although initial inquiries returned unserved notices, subsequent remand proceedings produced supplier replies, confirmations and supporting documents; inspectors found suppliers at premises; VAT authorities confirmed filings. The Court held that mere initial inability to serve or earlier visits observing closed premises did not justify overriding later corroborative material filed by assessee and suppliers' confirmations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-appearance or initial procedural obstacles do not justify additions if, on full record (including remand responses), sufficient corroborative evidence exists. Obiter - procedural non-cooperation may still be relevant where it is the only evidence and no corroboration is produced. Conclusion: Additions based primarily on initial non-service or suspicion were impermissible where later verifications and documents supported supplier existence. Issue 4: Consequences where AO accepts consumption of purchased material but alleges bills are procured only (shadow purchasing allegation) Legal framework: Allegation that goods were acquired elsewhere while bills procured from suppliers requires positive evidence; acceptance of consumption and lack of contradictory material undermines such an inference. Precedent Treatment: Courts have held that conjectural inference of procurement of goods elsewhere is not enough to make additions absent supporting evidence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that CIT(A)'s view that purchases were made elsewhere and only bills procured was speculative and unsupported by evidence; the AO did not produce materials to controvert invoices, challans, VAT returns or payment records. Therefore, the shadow-purchasing theory could not sustain addition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - speculative assertions of bill-trading without supporting evidence cannot displace documentary proof of purchases and consumption accepted by AO. Obiter - practicalities of market transactions and possibility of intermediary supply chains noted but not determinative here. Conclusion: Shadow-purchasing allegation was unsubstantiated and did not justify confirming additions. Overall Conclusion Given acceptance of purchases and trading results, the absence of rejection of books/method of accounting, the detailed documentary and corroborative evidence produced (ledgers, invoices, VAT returns, transport documents, confirmations/affidavits, statutory replies, bank payments and recovery proceedings) and lack of contrary material from revenue, the outstanding balances against the four creditors could not be treated as unexplained cash credits; the addition is to be deleted. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.