9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year wherein the ITAT considering the same Revenue recognition policy of the assessee allowed the claim of the assessee. The said view on facts has consistently been followed by the ITAT in 2007-08; 2008-09; and 2009-10 assessment years wherein either assessee s appeal has been allowed and where the CIT(A) allowed the relief following the view taken by the ITAT and the department has come in appeal, the departmental appeal has been dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of finality in the judicial forum' is contrary to facts and law as far as (a) that the Judicial Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Radhasoami Satsag vs CIT 193 ITR 321 has not been considered, wherein it has been held that the department cannot take a u turn on a consistent policy followed by the assessee for number of years and accepted by the department in spite of the fact that the principle of Res Judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings. Appellant has been following this consistent policy of offering the revenue for taxation, in the year in which services are rendered by him to the customers, since 1995. (b) That the following preceding judicial rulings, in the case of the appellant itself, have not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of CIT(A) with the finding of her predecessor in her order that "the Principles of res-judicata are not applicable to Income Tax Proceedings and moreover, this issue is yet to attain its stage of finality in the judicial forum.' is contrary to facts and law as far as (a) that the Judicial Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Radhasoami Satsag vs CIT 193 ITR 321 has not been considered, wherein it has been held that the department cannot take a u turn on a consistent policy followed by the assessee for number of years and accepted by the department in spite of the fact that the principle of Res Judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings. Appellant has been following this consistent policy of offering the revenue f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and filed the details. Assessee is a company and engaged in the business of imparting coaching (Test Preparation) to the students in respect of various entrance examination held in relations to Management, Engineering, and Fashion Designing etc. Necessary details which have been obtained during the course of assessment proceedings have been examined and assessment was completed at ₹ 30,57,28,890/- after disallowance of ₹ 15,00,32,898/- on account of Non- Refundable Portion of Advance fee disallowed and ₹ 3,30,76,812/- on account of Advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 31.7.2015 has partly allowed the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s advanced by the Id. CIT DR and the findings of the AO upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the issue has been fully considered on similarity facts in 2006- 07 assessment year wherein the ITAT considering the same Revenue recognition policy of the assessee allowed the claim of the assessee. The said view on facts has consistently been followed by the ITAT in 2007-08; 2008-09; and 2009-10 assessment years wherein either assessee's appeal has been allowed and where the CIT(A) allowed the relief following the view taken by the ITAT and the , department has come in appeal, the departmental appeal has been dismissed. It is also seen that the Revenue agitated the issue before the Hon'ble High Court u/ s 260A for 2006-07 assessment year wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent 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 longer be said to be res integra as far as the present forum is concerned. Accordingly in view of the factual position pleaded before the Bench as per the page No.-65 extracted in the earlier part of this order, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
