Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Mrs. Sushila Chudiwala, C/o. S.Venkatram & Co., Chartered Accountants, 218, TTK Road, Chennai-18. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Pondicherry.
August, 28th 2012
             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                       `C' BENCH, CHENNAI

         BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
             SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                             ITA No.459/Mds/2012
                            (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Mrs. Sushila Chudiwala,                Vs.   The Income Tax Officer,
C/o. S.Venkatram & Co.,                      Ward-I(2),
Chartered Accountants,                       Pondicherry.
218, TTK Road, Chennai-18.
PAN:ALBPS4639K
    (Appellant)                                   (Respondent)

                   Appellant by     : Mr. Seetharaman, C.A.
                 Respondent by      : Mr. S.Dasgupta, JCIT

                  Date of Hearing    : 7th August, 2012
          Date of Pronouncement      : 24th August, 2012




                                    ORDER

    PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

            The appeal has been           preferred by the       assessee

    impugning the order of the CIT(A)-XII, Chennai dated

    18.01.2012.

    2.      Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

    in the business of manufacturing of plastic hangers under the

    name of M/s. Auro Polymers. She filed her return of income

    relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 on 30.10.2007

    admitting total income of `2,68,430/-. The case of the
                                2            ITA No. 459/Mds/2012


assessee was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section

143(2) was issued on 2.9.2008. The Assessing Officer vide

assessment     order    dated       30.11.2009   completed    the

assessment and made certain additions/disallowances in the

income returned by the assessee and raised demand of

`12,22,215/- including interest under section 234B & 234C of

the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer added an

amount of `26,73,308/-     as unexplained cash credit under

section 68, certain expenses incurred by the assessee and

debited to profit and loss account to the extent of 1/4th of said

expenses amounting to `67,620/- were treated as personal

expenses.

      Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee

preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order

dated 18.1.2012 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now,

the assessee has come in second appeal before the Tribunal

assailing the order of the CIT(A).

3.    Shri Seetharaman, appearing on behalf of the assessee

submitted that sufficient opportunity to produce evidence was

not afforded to the assessee by the CIT(A). The assessee is
                             3           ITA No. 459/Mds/2012


in possession of documents to show that the amount of

`26,73,308/- is not unexplained cash credits, in fact,    the

amounts have actually be paid to the creditors. The A.R.

submitted that the loans as also repayments/interests are

made by way of crossed cheques. All the creditors are income

tax assessees and have PAN. He contended that if given an

opportunity the assessee can produce evidence to show the

genuineness of the transactions.     In order to support his

contentions, the A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT.,

reported as 116 Taxman 491(SC).

4.   On the other hand, Shri S.Dasgupta representing the

Department strongly supported the order passed by the

CIT(A) and submitted that ample opportunity was afforded to

the assessee to produce documents. The assessee failed to

produce the documents before the Assessing Officer as well

as the CIT(A).

5.   We have heard the submissions made by the respective

parties. As per the contentions of the A.R., the assessee had

given the details of the creditors viz., PAN, assessment
                                    4              ITA No. 459/Mds/2012





record, full address and details of the payments etc. but were

not taken into consideration by the CIT(A). We deem it

appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to grant an

opportunity     to    the     assessee       to    produce      relevant

documents/records to show genuineness of the transaction in

support of her case.        Without going into the merits of the

case, in the interest of justice, we remit the file to the CIT(A)

to decide the matter afresh after verifying the veracity of the

evidence furnished.

6.    The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 24th day of August, 2012
at Chennai.


        Sd/-                                                Sd/-
 ( N.S.Saini )                                    (Vikas Awasthy)
Accountant Member                                 Judicial Member
Chennai,
Dated the 24th August, 2012.
somu


                Copy to:           (1) Appellant         (4) CIT(A)
                                   (2) Respondent       (5) D.R.
                                   (3) CIT               (6) G.F.
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions