9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present forum is concerned. - Decision in the case of DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Versus Career Launcher (India) [2013 (8) TMI 139 - ITAT DELHI] followed - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No.1697/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - Smt Diva Singh And Sh. T.S.Kapoor JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. Vivek Wadekar, CIT DR Per Diva Singh, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.02.2014 of CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year on the following grounds:- 1. Addition of ₹ 16,16,61,424/- on account of Non-refundable portion of Advance Fee of by the Assessing Officer and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law and therefore, the addition is liable to be deleted. 2. Addition of ₹ 16, 16,61,424/- on account of Non-refundable portion of Advance Fee of by the Assessing Officer and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) has resulted in double addition of ₹ 16, 16,61,424/-, which has already been offered by the Appellant for taxation in the following assessment year i.e. AY 2011-12 on account of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in Schedule 8 of the balance sheet the assessee had shown unearned revenue as current liability. The AO required the assessee to explain the same. Considering the explanation of the assessee dated 08.03.2013 which is extracted in the assessment order itself the AO rejected the same for the following reasons:- The reply of the assessee co. has been considered and the same is not acceptable because of the following reasons: i) The assessee has stated that consistently the assessee is following the policy of not showing the advance fee as income and the same is shown in the subsequent year. In this regard it is stated that the principal of re-judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings and, therefore, the AO is at liberty to compute income of the assessee. ii) The assessee has stated that the assessee is regularly following this method of accounting and, therefore, the same is as per section 145 of the LT. Act, 1961, The income of the assessee for the year under consideration can not be rightly computed as per the accounting policies followed by the assessee. The accounting system and provision of the I.T Act, may not march step by step together as per the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability and should be considered as part of income of the year. In view of the above said discussion, the non-refundable portion of advance fee of ₹ 16,16,61,424/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. (Addition :Rs.16,16,61,424/-) 3. Aggrieved by this the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). However the CIT(A) after deliberating on the issue chose to follow the view taken by the respective CIT(A) s vide respective orders dated 13.06.2011 (2008-09 Assessment Year), 17.07.2012 in 2009-10 assessment year concurring with the view taken by the CIT(A) in 2006-07 Assessment Year by which the action of the AO had been upheld. 4. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR referring to the material available on record invited attention to the copy of the order of the Tribunal in 2005-06, 2006-07 assessment years which is placed at pages 12 to 51, inviting specific attention to page 43 to 50 it was submitted that the ITAT in 2006-07 assessment year vide paras 12 to 13.4 was pleased to reverse the finding of the CIT(A) by allowing the claim of the assessee. Inviting attention to pages 52-64 of the Paper Book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt was pleased to admit only the following 2 questions of law:- 1. Whether the respondent had failed/neglected to deduct tax at source under Section 194C and accordingly Section 40(A)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is attracted? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting addition of ₹ 37,44,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of bonus paid to the Directors in terms of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961? 5.3. In these aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was his prayer that the consistent view on the issue taken by the ITAT on facts should have been followed by the CIT(A) and he had instead chosen to rely upon the order of the CIT(A) in 2006-07 assessment year which was reversed by the ITAT vide its order dated 27.12.2010 copy of which is placed at pages 12 to 51 wherein Revenue has referred the matter before the Hon ble High Court in the aforementioned question of law which has not been admitted, in view of the fact that on similar issues the Hon ble High Court was conscious of their view taken in CIT Vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel 331 ITR 10 (Delhi). Inviting attention to Paper Book page-65 for the sake of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Accounts for the financial year ending 31.03.2009 so as to emphasize that Career Launcher (India) Limited ( the company ) was incorporated in India on April 25, 1996 to conduct various educational and consulting programmers. The company is a closely held company with 73.81% of the shares being held by the directors of the company and the balance 26.19% of the shares being held by other individuals and companies. 6.1. Inviting further attention to the same it was submitted that in the summary of significant Accounting Policies and qua the issue the following disclosure on Revenue recognition has been made:- (iii) Revenue Recognition Revenue in respect of educational and training fees received from students is recognized over the period of the course. Fees are recorded at invoice value, net of discounts if any. Where there is an uncertainty in recovery of the fees, the same is charged to the Profit Loss Account on completion of the course. 7. The Ld. CIT DR, Sh. Vivek Wadekar while referring to the orders of the Tribunal in 2006-07 assessment year at page 43 to 51 which has been followed in 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 assessment years, inviting attention to para 5.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 37,44,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of bonus paid to its directors without payment of the dividend in terms of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act? IV. Whether the claim of the respondent for extra depreciation on commuters peripherals amounting to ₹ 1,65,115/- @ 60% V. Whether the ITAT rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 12,01,0000/- made by the assessing officer on the receipt of non refundable admission fee by the respondent from the students in the relevant year? 9. It is seen that the Hon ble High Court vide its order dated 14.11.2011 in ITA No.-926/Del/2011 was pleased to admit only two of the following questions:- (1) whether the respondent had failed/neglected to deduct tax at sourced under section 194C and accordingly Section 40(A)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1061 is attracted? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting addition of ₹ 37,44,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of bonus paid to the Directors in terms of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 10. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of law, the issue can no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
