2025 (12) TMI 479 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue appeal fails; section 68 inapplicable to opening balances, GST and purchase claims allowed under sections 36(1)(vii), 37(1)

The ITAT Chandigarh dismissed Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s relief to the assessee on all issues. It confirmed deletion of addition u/s 68, ... Addition u/s 68 read with section 1153BE - Unexplained Sundry Creditors - HELD THAT:- Regarding this ground of appeal we find that the AO had invoked section 68 in respect of opening balances of M/s K.C. Soni & Sons Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Steel Sales. CIT(A) noted that no credit was introduced during the year, and the balances were carried forward from the preceding year. The assessee had written off the outstanding in FY 2022-23 and offered the same to tax in A.Y. 2023-24. Once no sum is found credited in the books in the relevant previous year, section 68 cannot be invoked. CIT(A) rightly followed Sanjay Mehta [2021 (9) TMI 895 - ITAT KOLKATA] and Topline Buildtech (P) Ltd. [2024 (5) TMI 1443 - DELHI HIGH COURT] We find no infirmity in this conclusion, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of GST expense - AO disallowed the amount treating it as liability of others - CIT(A) found that the assessee had deposited GST under statutory compulsion where suppliers failed to remit the collected tax, and the right to claim ITC had lapsed. The liability crystallized during the relevant year and was allowable either as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) or as business expenditure u/s 37(1). CIT(A) relied upon Pr. CIT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd [2022 (8) TMI 1141 - SUPREME COURT] wherein similar business expenditure was held allowable. We concur that the payment was in the course of business and not capital or personal in nature. Therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition on account of unverifiable purchases - AO treated purchases as bogus solely because suppliers were untraceable - CIT(A) noted that books were audited, not rejected u/s 145(3), and sales were accepted. All payments were made through banking channels and purchases were supported by invoices, E-way bills, and GST returns which have been placed in the voluminous paper book filed by the assessee and referred to during the course of hearing. CIT(A), following Pr. CIT v. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Pr. CIT v. Sunil Mittal HUF [2024 (7) TMI 793 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia [2017 (10) TMI 729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Restricted the addition only to the extent of average GP @ 0.84%, being Rs. 4,26,423. Revenue could not controvert the factual finding that sales were accepted and stock tally maintained. The assessee, on the other hand, relied upon a series of decisions of jurisdictional ITAT Chandigarh and other High Courts — including Gaurav Singhi [2025 (7) TMI 967 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (6) TMI 281 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (7) TMI 1158 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] and CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises [2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that when books are not rejected and sales accepted, no addition on account of GP is called for. No error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, even the nominal GP addition sustained is conservative and in favour of Revenue. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition on account of difference in purchases - CIT(A) found that the AO had compared net purchase values (excluding GST) with gross ledger figures (including GST and opening balances), leading to an artificial difference. Complete reconciliation supported by invoices and bank payments was filed. Books were not rejected. The finding of factual miscomparison remains unrebutted. We therefore find no infirmity in the deletion of this addition. Accordingly this ground of appeal is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be invoked in respect of opening balances of sundry creditors where no fresh credits have arisen during the relevant previous year. 1.2 Whether GST paid during the relevant previous year, arising from suppliers' failure to deposit GST collected in an earlier year and resulting in denial of input tax credit, is an allowable deduction as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) or as business expenditure under section 37(1). 1.3 Whether entire purchases from certain suppliers treated as non-genuine/untraceable are liable to be disallowed as bogus purchases, or whether only a profit element or gross profit rate can be added when books are not rejected and sales/stock tally are accepted. 1.4 Whether addition on account of alleged difference between purchases as per books and as per GST data is justified when reconciliation shows the difference arises from comparison of figures excluding and including GST and opening balances. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Section 68 addition on account of opening balances of sundry creditors Legal framework (as discussed): Section 68 permits addition of any sum found credited in the books of an assessee for which identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are not satisfactorily explained. The Court referred to decisions holding that section 68 applies only to credits arising in the relevant previous year. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned creditor balances were undisputedly opening balances carried forward from the preceding year; no fresh credit entries were made during the relevant previous year. The assessee had written off these balances in a subsequent year and offered them to tax then. Since no sum was 'found credited' in the books in the year under consideration, the foundational condition for invoking section 68 was absent. Reliance was placed on tribunal and High Court precedents holding that section 68 cannot be applied to opening balances. Conclusions: Section 68 could not be invoked in respect of opening balances where no fresh credits arose during the year. The deletion of the addition under section 68 was upheld and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. 2.2 Deductibility of GST paid due to supplier default and denial of ITC Legal framework (as discussed): The Court considered section 36(1)(vii) (bad debts) and section 37(1) (business expenditure) of the Income-tax Act, alongside section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 regarding conditions for input tax credit and the consequences of supplier default. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision allowing similar business expenditure. Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee had originally borne GST charged by suppliers for an earlier year, but those suppliers failed to deposit the tax, resulting in denial/forfeiture of input tax credit as per GST law. The assessee, under statutory compulsion, deposited the GST during the year in dispute. The liability thus crystallized in the relevant previous year. The amount represented a business loss/debt arising out of normal trading transactions and became irrecoverable, and was, therefore, allowable as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii); alternatively, it was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and not of a capital or personal nature, hence allowable under section 37(1). The Revenue's contention that this was a voluntary payment of another's liability was rejected in view of the statutory obligation under GST law and the nexus with business operations. Conclusions: The GST payment was a business outgo crystallizing during the year and was deductible either as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) or as business expenditure under section 37(1). The disallowance was rightly deleted and the Revenue's ground was dismissed. 2.3 Disallowance of alleged bogus/unverifiable purchases and scope for profit element addition Legal framework (as discussed): The Court applied judicial principles on bogus purchases where sales are accepted, including High Court and tribunal decisions (e.g., that only the profit element can be taxed where purchases are doubted but sales and quantitative records are accepted, and that outright disallowance of entire purchases is unwarranted unless books are rejected). Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer treated the entire purchases from specified suppliers as bogus on the basis that notices under sections 133(6) and 131 were not complied with, suppliers were non-existent/non-traceable, and GST compliance was absent. However, the assessee produced purchase invoices, E-way bills, stock registers, lorry/toll receipts, GST returns, and bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels. The books of account were audited and not rejected under section 145(3); sales were fully accepted; stock and quantitative tally were not disturbed. The CIT(A) and the Court held that where sales and stock records are accepted and books are not rejected, complete disallowance of purchases is not justified merely because suppliers are untraceable or non-compliant. At most, a profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax. Applying this principle, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to an amount equivalent to the average gross profit rate (0.84%) on the disputed purchases, resulting in a limited addition. The Court noted that this sustained GP addition was itself conservative and in favour of the Revenue, and the Revenue had not rebutted the factual findings supporting the genuineness of quantitative records and sales. Conclusions: Entire disallowance of purchases was unwarranted in the absence of rejection of books and where sales and stock tally were accepted. Only a limited addition on account of profit element was justified. The restriction of the addition to the gross profit element (0.84% of the disputed purchases) was affirmed, and the Revenue's plea for restoring the full disallowance was rejected. 2.4 Addition on account of alleged difference between purchases as per books and GST data Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer had compared purchase figures as per the assessee's records with GST data and computed a difference, leading to an addition for alleged inflated purchases. The CIT(A) found, on examination of reconciliation and supporting documents, that the Assessing Officer had erroneously compared net purchase values excluding GST in the assessee's books with gross figures including GST and opening balances in supplier ledgers, thereby creating an artificial difference. The assessee had furnished a detailed reconciliation supported by invoices, supplier ledgers, and bank payment records, which fully reconciled the amounts. Books of account were not rejected and no specific defect in reconciliation was pointed out by the Revenue before the Court. Conclusions: The alleged difference in purchases arose from a miscomparison of figures excluding and including GST and opening balances and stood satisfactorily reconciled. The addition on account of difference in purchases was rightly deleted, and the Revenue's ground was dismissed.