TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: " 1. That the ACIT Circle-55 (1) New Delhi could not had assumed legally valid jurisdiction to frame the asstt. in the absence of proper order u/s.127 of the I.T. Act and in the absence of service of such order, if any passed. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on merits in making addition of Rs. 60,58,538/- for sundry creditor M/s JMD Trading Comp. u/s.41(1)(a) treating the same as ceased liabilities, incorrectly, more so complete payment already stands made in subsequent periods through banking channel, which stands accepted in respective years. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo parties were not genuine. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that non genuineness of a creditor impinges on the claim of expenses by the assessee incurred with respect to the said creditor of the entire amount booked. That it does not by any stretch result in cessation of liability of the creditor so as to add only the outstanding amount to the income of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act. 6. He pointed out that in both the cases the AO had conducted verification of the sundry creditors and found them not to exist at the said address. He also pointed out that the AO even recorded a finding that the liability shown in the books of the assessee with respect to these creditors was not genuine. Our attention in this regard was drawn to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count the documents furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The same documents are again submitted before the Id. CIT(A) which has already been rejected by the AO while passing the assessment order. The appellant had not filed any new facts on record. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. The onus always lies on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Since the appellant did not come forward with any new facts with supporting evidences/ information responding to the notices issued, I am not convinced with the contentions/ arguments of the appellant in this regard. Therefore, the additions made by the AO are confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) for treating the impugned outstanding liability in relation to the 2 creditors to have ceased to exist rests on his enquiry showing the said creditors to be not genuine. At para 3.4 of his order, we have noted the AO to record the verification of the sundry creditors and find the said two parties to be not existing at the stated address, and based on this fact, the AO notes that the liabilities shown by the assessee in its books of accounts in relation to the said parties to be not genuine. There is clearly no case made out, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, of the liabilities ceasing to exist. The non genuineness of the sundry creditors shows that the transactions conducted with them were not true and therefo....