JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 69/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1986 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 69/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., 6/1180, GOPI BHANWAR PALACE, PARTANIYON KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACJ 3487 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/09/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 24/11/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUN D OF APPEAL, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN MAKING AN AD DITION OF RS. 43,66,283/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LIABILITIES O F SUNDRY CREDITORS OF FOLLOWING CREDITORS CONSIDERING THE SA ME AS ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 2 HAVING CEASED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE PETITIONER INCOME U/S 41(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. (I) M/S CORAL GEMS RS. 19,96,783/- (II) M/S HEM GEMS, MUMBAI RS. 20,50,500/- (III) M/S PRIYA JEWELS RS. 75,000/- (IV) M/S UNITED GEMS INDIA RS. 2,44,000/- RS. 43,66,283/- 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.43,66,283/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES OF SUND RY CREDITORS AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAME HAVE CEASED TO EXIST HEN CE ADDED BACK U/S 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NORMALLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES. HOWEVER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS T O THE TUNE OF RS.87,50,051/- AS ON 31.03.2012.THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM 5 CRE DITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.46,24,283/-.HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THESE PARTIES (EXCEPT M/S HEM GEMS AS NO ADDRESS WAS PROVIDED). NOTICE WAS SERVED ONLY TO M/S KINGS OF JEWELS. THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF M/S KINGS OF JEWELS WAS VERIFIED BY THE AO FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT FILE D BY M/S KINGS OF JEWELS. THE A.O. ADDED THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING LIABI LITIES: ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 3 M/S CORAL GEMS RS. 19,96,783/- M/S HEM GEMS, MUMBAI RS. 20,50,500/- M/S PRIYA JEWELS RS. 75,000/- M/S UNITED GEMS INDIA RS. 2,44,000/- 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE IT AT. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. SECTION 41(1) IS APPLICABLE WHERE ANY LOSS, EXPE NDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND SUBSEQUENTLY THERE IS A REMISSION OR CESSATION THER EOF OR SUCH AMOUNT IS UNILATERALLY WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH REMISSION OR CESSATI ON NOR THERE IS ANY UNILATERAL WRITTEN BACK OF SUCH LIABILITY. O NLY BECAUSE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED OR THE CREDITORS DID NOT RESPOND, IT CANT BE PRESUMED THAT THE LIABILITY HA S CEASED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF REMISSION OR CESSATION OR ANY UNILATERAL WRITTEN BACK OF SUCH LI ABILITY BY ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME U/S 41(1). FOR THIS PURPOSE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- CIT VS. NARENDRA MOHAN MATHUR (2014) 97 DTR 428 (RAJ.) (HC) THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING CERTAIN LIABILITIES IN TH E SHAPE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE AO INVOKED SEC. 41(1). IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BY THE CREDITORS OR THE PARTI ES CHOOSE NOT TO APPEAR, IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE TRADE CRE DITORS WERE ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 4 NOT GENUINE AND WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE SO AS TO INVO KE SEC. 41(1). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAY ABLE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE AO AS TO HOW THE SO C ALLED LIABILITIES CEASED OR CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THERE FORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 41(1). PC1T VS. RAMGOPAL MINERALS (2017) 246 TAXMAN 267 (KAR.) (HC) WHERE CREDITORS WERE NOT TRACEABLE BUT ASSESSEE HA D PROVED GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION BY PRODUCING LEDGER ACCO UNTS AND PROOF OF PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH BANK CHANNELS AND PA N NUMBERS, THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY OF DEB T TO BE PAID BY ASSESSEE TO CREDITORS AND THEREFORE, CONDITION P RECEDENT FOR INVOKING SECTION 41(1) WAS NOT SATISFIED. CIT VS. ALVARES & THOMAS (2016) 239 TAXMAN 456 (KAR.) (HC) IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE CREDITOR WAS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PAST 7 TO 8 YEARS, HONBLE COURT C ONSIDERING THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VARDHAM AN OVERSEAS LTD. AND SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. 140 ITR 286 HELD THAT SECTION 41(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE UNLESS IT IS PROVED ON RECORD THAT THERE IS REMISSION OF LIABILITY BY THE CREDITOR OR ANY UNILATERAL ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. ITO VS. MARCOPOLO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2016) 159 ITD 266 (KOL.) (TRIB.) THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41. FIRSTLY, THERE SHOULD BE CESSATION OR ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 5 REMISSION OF LIABILITY AND SECONDLY IT SHOULD BE CE ASED TO BE SO DURING PREVIOUS YEAR. EVEN WHERE AN AMOUNT REMAINED UNCLAIMED BY SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR A CONSIDERABLE PE RIOD OF TIME AND SAID LIABILITY WAS CARRIED FORWARD FOR MANY YEA RS AND THERE WAS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION DURING PREVIOUS YEAR, SAME COULD NOT BE ADDED TO INCOME. CIT VS. G.K. PATEL & CO. (2012) 212 TAXMAN 384 (GUJ .) (HC) AO FINDS THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID MONEY TO MANY OF CREDITORS FOR YEARS TOGETHER & THUS ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC 41(1). IT WAS HELD THAT CES SATION OF LIABILITY HAS TO BE EITHER BY REASON OF OPERATION O F LAW, I.E., ON LIABILITY BECOMING UNENFORCEABLE AT LAW BY CREDITOR AND DEBTOR DECLARING UNEQUIVOCALLY HIS INTENTION NOT TO HONOUR HIS LIABILITY WHEN PAYMENT IS DEMANDED BY CREDITOR, OR A CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES, OR BY DISCHARGE OF DEBT. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, SINCE THERE WAS NO DECLARATION BY ASSESSEE THAT IT DID NO T INTEND TO HONOUR ITS LIABILITIES NOR WAS THERE ANY DISCHARGE OF DEBT, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41(1) COULD NOT BE INVOKED. CIT VS. SLIRI VARDHAMAN OVERSEAS LTD. (2012) 343 IT R 408/ 69 DTR 379 (DEL.)(HC) AMOUNTS STANDING IN THE NAMES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AND NOT UNILAT ERALLY WRITTEN BACK TO P&L A/C CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/ S 41(1). ARGUMENT OF REVENUE THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OR NON-DIS CHARGE OF THE LIABILITY IN FAVOUR OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS RESULTED IN SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY IN A PRACTICAL SENSE OR COMMON SENSE AND, THEREFORE THE SECTION WA S RIGHTLY ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 6 INVOKED, OVERLOOKS THE WORDS FOLLOWING THE QUOTED W ORDS, NAMELY, BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF. CIT VS. SMT. SITA DEVI JUNEJA (2010) 325 ITR 593 (P&H) (HC) HELD THAT 'IT IS THE CONCEDED POSITION THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S BALANCE SHEET, THE IMPUGNED LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN S HOWN, WHICH ARE PAYABLE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. SUCH LIABILITI ES, SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, INDICATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF T HE DEBTS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH LIABIL ITY IS OUTSTANDING FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, IT CANNOT BE PR ESUMED THAT THE SAID LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. IT IS AL SO CONCEDED POSITION THAT THERE IS NO BILATERAL ACT OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE CREDITORS, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SAID LIABILITIE S HAVE CEASED TO EXIST. IN ABSENCE OF ANY BILATERAL ACT, THE SAID LI ABILITIES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED TO HAVE CEASED. IN VIEW OF TH ESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY INVOKED THE EXPLN . 1 OF S. 41(1) AND MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMP TION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER FOUND THAT THE AO FAILED TO SHOW THAT IN ANY EARLIER YEAR, ALLOWAN CE OR DEDUCTION HAD BEEN IN RESPECT OF ANY TRADING LIABIL ITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOT PROVED THAT ANY BE NEFIT WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CONCERNING SUCH TRADING LI ABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF DURING THE CO NCERNED YEAR. THUS, THERE DID NOT ACCRUE ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFIT OR GAIN OF T HE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE T HE ASSESSEE'S INCOME. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER FOUND AS FAC T THAT THE ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 7 ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SIGNED BY THE CONCERNED CREDITORS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CO NFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS WAS PRODUCED. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL AND, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW, AS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IN THIS APPEAL, ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.' 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF M/S CORAL GEMS, PURCHASES WERE MADE IN THE FY 2001-02 (PB 5 & 12). AGAINST THOSE PURCHASES PAYMENT OF RS.32,50,000/- WAS MADE IN FY 2004- OS A ND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,96,783/- WAS OUTSTANDING. COPY OF ACCOUNT IS AT PB 4. THEREAFTER, M/S CORAL GEMS VIDE LETTER DT. 15.05.20 08 DEMANDED THE BALANCE PAYMENT (PB 6). THIS SHOWS THAT THE LIABILITY HAS NOT CEASED TO EXIST. IN CASE OF PRIYA JEWELS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A PROPRIETOR CONCERN OF SH. GO VIND JOHARI. ITS NEW ADDRESS WAS PROVIDED AT C-7, PRITHVIRAJ ROA D, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR. GOVIND NARAYAN JOHARI IS ASSESSED W ITH ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-ILL, JAIPUR. M/S KING OF JEWELS IS A LSO A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SH. GOVIND JOHARI WHOSE CRED IT WAS ACCEPTED BY AO AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO HELD THAT LIABILITY OF M/S PRIYA JEWELS OF RS.75,000/- HAS CE ASED TO EXISTS. PAN OF GOVIND NARAYAN JOHARI IS AAQPJ4277Q. IN CASE OF UNITED GEMS INDIA, PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM HIM ON 24.06.2004 (PB 20) AGAINST WHICH PAYMENT OF RS.2,58,000/- WAS MADE ON 02.08.2005 (PB 22) AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2,44,000/- IS STILL PAYABLE. SAME IS THE CASE OF HEM GEMS. THUS, ALL THE LIABILITIES ARE SUBSISTING AND ONLY B ECAUSE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE TO THEM CANNOT BE A REASON TO INVOKE SE CTION 41(1). ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 8 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BE DIREC TED TO BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING THESE LIABILITIES IN ITS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT FOR YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT WA S PAYABLE AND THESE LIABILITIES WERE NEVER CEASED. IT WAS CLAIMED T HAT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF THE LIABILITY. FOR INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 41, THERE MUST BE TWO CONDITIONS FULFILLED (I) THERE SHO ULD BE CESSATION/REMISSION OF LIABILITY AND (II) IT SHOULD BE CEASED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. EVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT REMAINED UNCLAIMED FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIOD BUT IT REMAINS TO BE PAYABLE THEN THERE IS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF SUCH LIABILITY. FURTHER IT IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING INTENTION TO REPAY THESE LIABILITIES. THESE L IABILITIES WERE CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THUS THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIABILITY PAYABLE BY HIM. THEREFO RE, MERELY ON THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY IS OUTSTANDING FOR MANY YEA RS SHALL NOT AMOUNT TO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF THE LIABILITY. IT IS PERT INENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 9 CASE OF CORAL GEMS, PURCHASES WERE MADE IN F.Y. 2001 -02, IT IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 5 & 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AGA INST THOSE PURCHASES, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 32,50,000/- WAS PAID IN F.Y.2004-05 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,96,783/- WAS OUTSTANDING AS EVID ENT FROM PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CORAL GEMS DEMANDED THE BA LANCE AMOUNT ON 15/5/2008, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 6 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. THESE FACTS SUGGEST THAT THE LIABILITY WAS NOT CEASED TO EXIST. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF PRIYA JEWELS, WHICH IS A PROPRIETORY C ONCERN OF SHRI GOVIND JOHARI AND ITS NEW ADDRESS WAS PROVIDED I.E. C -7, PRITHIVIRAJ ROAD, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. GOVIND NARAYAN JOHARI WAS AS SESSED TO INCOME TAX AT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, JAIPUR. THE OTHER PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF SHRI GOVIND JOHARI WAS M/S KING OF JEWELS. THE LIA BILITY OF THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS GENUINE AND PAYABLE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE LIA BILITY OF M/S PRIYA JEWELS OF RS. 75,000/-. PAN OF SHRI GOVIND JOHARI WAS ALSO PROVIDED. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF UNITED GEMS INDIA, PURCHAS ES WERE MADE ON 20/06/2004 AGAINST WHICH PAYMENT OF RS. 2,58,000/- WA S MADE ON 02/08/2005 AND THE BALANCE WAS STILL PAYABLE. THE SAM E IS THE CASE WITH HEM GEMS, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THES E LIABILITIES WERE SUBSISTING DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND ONLY BECAUSE PAYMENTS ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 10 WERE NOT MADE AGAINST THESE LIABILITIES, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD., THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HEL D AS UNDER: SEC. 41 CONTEMPLATES THE OBTAINING BY THE ASSESSEE OF AN AMOUNT EITHER IN CASH OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER OR A BENEFIT BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION AND IT SHOULD BE OF A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OBTAINED BY HIM. T HUS, THE OBTAINING BY THE ASSESSEE OF A BENEFIT BY VIRTUE OF REMISSION OR CESSATION IS SINE QUA NON FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A N ENTRY OF TRANSFER IN HIS ACCOUNTS UNILATERALLY WILL NOT ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SAY THAT S. 41 WOULD APPLY AND THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. JUST BECAUSE AN ASSESSEE MAKES AN ENTRY IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UN ILATERALLY, HE CANNOT GET RID OF HIS LIABILITY. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS AC TUALLY BARRED BY LIMITATION IS NOT A MATTER WHICH CAN BE DECIDED BY CONSIDERING THE ASSE SSEE'S CASE ALONE BUT IT IS A MATTER WHICH HAS TO BE DECIDED ONLY IF THE CREDITOR IS BEF ORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CREDITOR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEBT IS BARRED AND HAS BECOME UNENFORCEABLE. TH ERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ENABLE THE CREDITOR TO COME WITH A PROCEEDING F OR ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT EVEN AFTER EXPIRY OF THE NORMAL PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED IN THE LIMITATION ACT. THE PRINCIPLE THAT EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESC RIBED UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT COULD NOT EXTINGUISH THE DEBT BUT IT WOULD ONLY PREVENT T HE CREDITOR FROM ENFORCING THE DEBT, HAS BEEN WELL SETTLED. IF THAT PRINCIPLE IS APPLIED , IT IS CLEAR THAT MERE ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTOR MADE UNILATERALLY WITHOUT ANY ACT ON THE PART OF THE CREDITOR WILL NOT ENABLE THE DEBTOR TO SAY THAT THE LIABILIT Y HAS COME TO AN END. APART FROM THAT, THAT WILL NOT BY ITSELF CONFER ANY BENEFIT ON THE D EBTOR AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE SECTION- CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. (1981) 23 CTR (CAL) 226 : (1983) 140 ITR 286 (CAT) : CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION AND THE CASE LAWS, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/10/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RANJAN ITA 69/JP/2016_ M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL VS ITO 11 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S JOHARIMAL BHANWAR LAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 69/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR