9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 764 - AT - Income TaxAccrual of Income - unreconciled AIR / ITS data - income offered in the next year - tax neutral - Held that - Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,06,73,054/- representing various invoices raised by the assessee on his clients in the month of April 2009. These receipts were accounted for in the relevant previous years of A.Y.2010-11, meaning thereby the income has already accounted for in the subsequent assessment year. The claim of the assessee is that the Revenue is recognized only at a stage where there is certainty of realization of income. It is noted that there is no undue benefit derived by the assessee in accounting for certain invoices in subsequent year. Our view finds support from the decision from Hon ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT The tax rate in both the years is same, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A). Finally, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Tax effect in ITA No.4136/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2011-12) being less than the prescribed monetary limit. 2. Income recognition in ITA No.4135/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2009-10) and the application of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. precedent. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Tax Effect in ITA No.4136/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2011-12) The Revenue challenged the impugned order dated 12/02/2015. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the tax effect in ITA No.4136/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2011-12) is less than the prescribed monetary limit. The learned DR did not controvert this assertion. The total addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unreconciled AIR/ITS data is ?27,10,970/-, bringing the total tax effect to ?9,00,516/-, which is below the prescribed monetary limit of ?10,00,000/- as per CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed. Issue 2: Income Recognition in ITA No.4135/Mum/2015 (A.Y.2009-10)The Revenue challenged the impugned order dated 11/02/2015. The learned Counsel for the assessee explained that income was offered in the next year, whereas the Assessing Officer assessed it in the current year. The Counsel placed reliance on the decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., arguing that since the tax rate in both years is the same, there is no loss to the Revenue. The learned DR defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It referred to the CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. case, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income, and income accrues when it becomes due and is accompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of ?2,06,73,054/- representing various invoices raised by the assessee on his clients in April 2009, which were accounted for in the subsequent assessment year (A.Y.2010-11). The claim of the assessee was that revenue is recognized only when there is certainty of realization of income. The Tribunal found no undue benefit derived by the assessee in accounting for certain invoices in the subsequent year and supported this view with the decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. Since the tax rate in both years is the same, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed both appeals of the Revenue. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 15/03/2017.
|
