ITAT Upholds Deletion of 11.23 Cr Addition on Trade Payables

ITAT Delhi upholds CIT(A) order deleting 11.23 crore addition, as amount pertained to capital goods of earlier year

Tribunal rules amount related to capital goods of earlier year; no addition in AY 2016–17.

Meetu Kumari | Jul 30, 2025 |

ITAT Upholds Deletion of 11.23 Cr Addition on Trade Payables

ITAT Upholds Deletion of 11.23 Cr Addition on Trade Payables

On October 17, 2016, Assessee company, a Special Purpose Vehicle, was established for the purpose of building highways by a partnership between two parties, which submitted its income return for AY 2016-17, stating that it had earned 2,857 from bank interest. No expenses were reported. The assessee unintentionally included Rs 11,23,30,245 under the heading “Trade Payables” in its return, which related to creditors for capital goods from AY 2015-16.

During assessment, the AO treated this as unexplained trade payables and added the entire sum, rejecting the assessee’s explanation that it was capitalised in AY 2015-16.

CIT(A)’s Decision: On appeal, the CIT(A) examined the audited accounts and accepted the assessee’s contention, deleting the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT.

Issue Raised: Whether Rs. 11.23 crore shown as “Trade Payables” in AY 2016-17 could be treated as an unexplained liability when the assessee demonstrated that it pertained to creditors for capital goods of AY 2015-16.

ITAT’s Decision: The ITAT maintained the CIT(A)’s ruling and denied the Revenue’s appeal. The Tribunal held that the Rs. 11.23 crore addition was unjustified since the amount clearly pertained to AY 2015-16 and was already capitalized in the assessee’s books. Its nature was not altered by the unintentional disclosure made under “Trade Payables” in AY 2016-17. The Bench determined that the Revenue had not refuted the assessee’s explanation or the conclusions of the CIT(A) with reference to Note 4 of the Balance Sheet.

The Tribunal ruled that no income could be taxed in AY 2016-17 due to the aforementioned amount, thus confirming the removal of the addition. Therefore, the Revenue’s appeal was denied because it lacked merit.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
High Court Limits Section 69A Addition to Actual Cash Seized RBI Expands Reporting Norms for Global INR Derivative Transactions by Banks RBI Notifies Fresh IRAC Guidelines; Old Framework Replaced with Amendments RBI Issues Final Basel III Credit Risk Framework Under Standardised Approach HC Rules No GST on University Affiliation and NOC FeesView All Posts