Shri Rajendrasingh Giansing Bharadwaj, Kheda V. The ACIT, Kheda Circle, Kheda

ITA 482/AHD/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajendrasing Giansing Bharadwaj, a civil contractor, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Vadodara, which had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The additions included Rs. 54,046 for income not reported but for which TDS was claimed, Rs. 3,68,700 for late payment of employees' Provident Fund contributions, and Rs. 2,81,076 for disallowed petrol, diesel, and oil expenses. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the submissions and evidence provided, including reconciliation statements and vouchers for the disputed expenses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299978 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . No .4 82 /A h d / 20 20 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 13- 1 4 ) R aj e n dr a s in g G i an s ing B ha r a dw aj 24, A r b u d a Na ga r S oci e t y, M is s i on R o ad , N ad ia d, D is t: Kh ed a V s . A C I T K h ed a C ir cl e , N a dia d [ P AN N o. A C I P B 4 6 2 8 H ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 28.02.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 03.03.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Vadodara on 07.09.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) is erred in not keeping the appeal pending for hearing as asked by the appellant. 2. The learned C.I.T. (A) is erred in not passing the final order on the facts of the case, instead of giving another opportunity of hearing giving further notice. 3. The learned C.I.T.(A) is erred in Law in facts for addition of Rs. 54,046/- on account of less income taken in books as compared to 26AS from M.V. Omni Pvt. Ltd. 4. The learned C.T.T.(A) is erred in law in facts in making addition on account of Employees P.F. contribution not credited to the government account in prescribed time amounting to Rs. 3,68,700/-. 5. The learned C.I.T (A) is erred in law of disallowance out of petrol, diesel, oil, expenses of Rs. 2,81,076/-. 6. The appellant submits that the order passed by learned C.I.T(A) with due respect is be held that it is bad in law and contrary to the provision of law and facts. It is submitted that same be held so now. ITA No. 482/Ahd/2020 Shri Rajendrasing Giansing Bharadwaj vs. ACIT Asst.Year–2013-14 - 2 - 7. The appellant submits that the case be referred back to C.I.T. (A) for taking proper decision as per law and as per the facts of the case. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add after and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before final hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee is a proprietary concern of M/s. Bhardwaj Construction dealing in Civil contractor. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.16,35,716/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs. 7,03,842/- out of which Rs. 54,046/- income not offered but TDS claimed thereon, Rs. 3,68,700/- towards late payment of employees’ Provident Fund contribution and Rs. Rs. 2,81,096/- out of petrol, diesel, oil expenses determining total income at Rs. 23,39,560/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Ground No. 1 & 2 are general in nature hence not press. Ground No. 6 & 7 are also general in nature hence not press. Therefore, Ground No. 1, 2, 6 & 7 are dismissed. 6. As relates to Ground No. 4 the Ld. A.R. submitted that the same is related to delayed payment of employees’ Provident Fund contribution which is held against the assessee by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Hence, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. ITA No. 482/Ahd/2020 Shri Rajendrasing Giansing Bharadwaj vs. ACIT Asst.Year–2013-14 - 3 - 7. The Ld. A.R. in respect of Ground No. 3 submitted that the assessee has received payment of Rs. 54,046/- from the M. V. Omni Pvt. Ltd. but the said receipts were offered for taxation in previous years and therefore, the assessee claimed TDS on this payment during the year. The assessee has taken the said income in the F.Y. 2011-12 and debited to his account and carried to receipt account on the basis of his bill, while the company has taken as expenditure in their books in F.Y. 2012-13 and thus, in F.Y. 2012- 13 the assessee credited the same to his account and debited to receipt account. Thus, the assessee has filed the difference of thereto by reconciliation in respect of the tax paid on this amount in A.Y. 2012-13 and therefore, no need to tax in F.Y. 2013-14. 8. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has claimed TDS in this assessment year and therefore, the AO has rightly rejected the same. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 9. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the assessee has also paid tax on this amount in A.Y. 2013-14 and there was a reconciliation statement filed by the assessee explaining thereto about the said receipts the TDS claim is genuine claim of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed. Ground No. 3 is allowed. 10. As relates to Ground No. 5 the Ld. A.R. submitted that the expenses which were disallowed are on ad-hoc basis and in fact, for the turnover of rupees more than six lakh. The assessee has claimed the expenses of Rs. 28,10,964/- for which the assessee has given the details such as vouchers ITA No. 482/Ahd/2020 Shri Rajendrasing Giansing Bharadwaj vs. ACIT Asst.Year–2013-14 - 4 - and bills. The bills were not doubted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justifiable. Hence, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 11. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/03/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 03/03/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 28.02.2023 2. Date on which the type draft is placed before the Dictating Member 01.03.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .03.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .03.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 03.03.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 03.03.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................