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
(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.
Appellant by : Mr. Seetharaman, C.A.
Respondent by : Mr. S.Dasgupta, JCIT
Date of Hearing : 7th August, 2012
Date of Pronouncement : 24th August, 2012
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal has been preferred by the assessee
impugning the order of the CIT(A)-XII, Chennai dated
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
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
6. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 24th day of August, 2012
( N.S.Saini ) (Vikas Awasthy)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated the 24th August, 2012.
Copy to: (1) Appellant (4) CIT(A)
(2) Respondent (5) D.R.
(3) CIT (6) G.F.