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.

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
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition Accepting Deceased Father’s Lifetime Cash SavingsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








