SHRI RAJENDRA GIANSINGH BHARDWAJ,,KHEDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, NADIAD

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘hereinafter called CIT(A)’) order no. CIT(A)-/Vadodara-2/10213/16- 17 order dated 11/07/2018 arising out of assessment order dated 21/04/2016.

Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 25.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.11,48,019/-. This return was revised on 03.08.2015 declaring total income at Rs.14,13,055/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction specially the construction of bridges in the name of M/s Bharadwaj Construction. After considering the submission of assessee, AO made certain additions. The additions which are subject matter of present appeal are as under:- “During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assesses has received payment of Rs.3,22,036/- on 30/01/2014 from M.V. Omni Pvt. Ltd. but not offered the same for taxation. Hence, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the amount of Rs.3,22,036/- should not be added in his total income. In response to the same, the assessee has not offered satisfactory explanation however, he has furnished the ledger copy of account of M.V. Omni Pvt. Ltd. from his books of account. On verification of the said ledger account, it is found that the assessee has not accounted the payment of Rs.3,22,036/- received from M.V. Omni Pvt Ltd.. Thus, the assesse has failed to offer the income of Rs.3,22,036/- for taxation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to justify the same, hence, in the absence of any plausible explanation and supporting evidence, the amount of Rs.3,22,036/- is added to the total income of the assessee.”

Against the said addition, assesse preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the Ld. A.O. In view of the Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the matter of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation wherein it has been decided that if there is any delay on the part of the employer for payment of employees contribution towards the Provident Fund then in such case deduction shall not be allowable to the employer/assesse.

Now assesse has filed second statutory appeal before us.

In our considered opinion, this cannot be on this ground neither for adjournment nor for matter be kept in abeyance merely on the basis that matter is pending before the Supreme Court. However, it will be open for assesse to file M.A as per law. In case matter is decided in favour of the assesse and against the revenue. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the written submission of the assesse. Therefore, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.