TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by sustaining the unwarranted additions of Rs. 19,61,036/- made by the learned Income Tax Officer u/sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged unsupported/unproved Sundry Creditors. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before confirming the aforesaid additions has not appreciated that :- a) The addition of so called unsupported/unconfirmed Sundry Creditors are pertaining to previous years i.e. prior to assessment year under appeal and these are the brought forward opening balance pertaining to previous years, which cannot form part the income-of the year under appeal. (b) The statements recorded by the learned Assessing Officer during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort with reference to the documents already on record and were available both with the learned Assessing Officer and also before him. The objection of the appellant that the statements recorded to the appellant u/sec. 131 of the Act were not taken in a right because it is prospective ignoring the documents already available with him but this objection of the appellant was at first not decided by the Hon'ble CIT (A) before deciding the appeal of the appellant, therefore, the appellate order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) are bad in law. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT (A) while upholding the aforesaid unwarranted addition of Rs. 19,61,036/- has failed to appreciate that these liabilities were since the opening ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the addition of Rs. 19,61,036/- on alleged fictitious creditors. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to file the confirmation from all creditors. Since the appellant failed to file the confirmation letters from the creditors, a sum of Rs. 19,61,036/- was added to the returned income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 11.11.2010 dismissed the appeal after considering the confirmation letters filed before him. He further concluded that the confirmation letters filed before him were bogus and therefore, upheld the addition. Hence, the present appeal. 3. It was argued before us that the learned CIT(A) while disposing of appeal had not complied with the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional evidence along with the application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Apparently, after admitting this additional evidence, the learned CIT(A) has called for remand report from the Assessing Officer, who in turn, examined Mr. Rajesh Raheja Prop. of R&A Techniques and Mr. Anubhav Raheja Prop. of Millennium Marketing on oath. They stated on oath that there were no money payable to M/s Perfect Paradise Emporium Ltd. i.e. the appellant and they further stated that they never signed any confirmation letters. The remand report of the Assessing Officer was furnished to the Authorized Representative of the appellant by the learned CIT(A). This amounts to affording an opportunity to rebut the remand report. While responding to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. 588 of 2013, dated 04.02.2013, in which it was held as under: "Section 41(1) of the Act as discussed in the above three decisions would apply in a case where there has been remission or cessation of liability during the year under consideration subject to the conditions contained in the statute being fulfilled. Additionally, such cessation or remission has to be during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In the present case, both elements are missing. There was nothing on record to suggest there was remission or cessation of liability that too during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 which was the year under consideration. It is undoubtedly a curious case. Even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 8. Applying the ratio in the cases mentioned supra, we hold that 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 ....