DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MONSTER.COM(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 369/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 June 2021AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) had also followed these decisions to delete the additions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of an addition made towards unmatured income. The assessee contended that the issue was decided in its favor in earlier assessment years by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether unmatured income, where advances are shown as accrued and non-refundable, can be added to the income when the assessee follows a proportional receipt basis of accounting.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 21/06/2021Pronounced: 23/06/2021

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

Both are Revenue’s appeals for the A.Ys 2016-17 & 2017-18 against the orders of the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad, dated 20.02.2020.

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is filed with a delay of 57 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the delay is due to COVID-19 lockdown. Taking the same into consideration and also the Writ Petition No. High Court dated 25-11-2020 in Writ Petition N0.1 of 2020 wherein the Hon’ble High Court considering the widespread pandemic situation, excluded the period of limitation, we hold that there is no delay in filing of this appeal. and 369 of 2020 Monster.Com India P Ltd Hyderabad

At the time hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in this appeal had arisen in the assessee’s own case in the earlier A.Ys including the A.Ys 2004-05 and 2005-06 and the Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He submitted that though the Assessing Officer has taken note of the Tribunal’s decision in favour of the assessee for the A.Ys 2004-05 and 2005-06, he has repeated the addition by observing that the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and that the appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court. We also find that the CIT (A) had followed the decision of the ITAT in the earlier years to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, against which, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.68,82,88,074/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unmatured income wherein the advances shown by the assessee are already accrued and the advances received are not refundable receipts.

2. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing”.

Since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the earlier A.Ys, and the CIT (A) has given relief to the assessee by following the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). However, for the sake of ready reference, the decision of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2014-15 is reproduced hereunder:

“7. We have considered the submissions of both parties. In the assessee's own case the Tribunal observed that the assessee followed appropriate revenue recognition method of accounting and thus the income declared on proportional receipt basis cannot be questioned. This order was followed by the ITAT in the assessee's own case in the A.Ys 2007-08 to 2009-10 (ITA No. 1762/Hyd/2011 onwards dated 31.03.2017), wherein the Bench reiterated the stand that was taken in the assessee's own case in the earlier years. Ld. DR however submits and 369 of 2020 Monster.Com India P Ltd Hyderabad that in 2008-2009 a different view was taken in the case of Zenith Energy Services Pvt Ltd., (supra) but the fact remains that factual matrix of the case was different from the facts with which we are concerned. Even otherwise the above said decision was rendered in 2012 wherein the view already taken by the ITAT 'B' Bench Hyderabad in 2007 was not referred to and thus the view already taken by the Tribunal earlier, which was recently followed, should be taken as precedent more particularly when a decision was rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the earlier year. Under these circumstances, we affirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue”.

Respectfully following the same, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd June, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →