ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PANCARD CLUBS LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2020AY 2012-135 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 followed its own previous decisions and High Court rulings in the assessee's own case. These precedents held that advance receipts from room night sales are not revenue receipts and the provision for holiday scheme surrender value is an allowable expenditure.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15. The appeals concerned the treatment of advance receipts from room night sales and provisions for holiday scheme surrender value.

What were the issues?

Whether advance receipts from room night sales constitute revenue and if provisions for holiday scheme surrender value are allowable expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri V. Sreekar, DR
Hearing: 09.01.2020Pronounced: 02.03.2020

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 522/Mum/2018
ITA No. 523/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Pancard Clubs Ltd Income Tax, Circle 7(3)(1), 111-113, Kalyandas Udyog Mumbai Bhavan, Near Century बनाम/ Bhavan, Prabhadevi, Vs. Mumbai-400 025 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACP9093R अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Sreekar, DR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent by : None सुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 02.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R शमीम याहया, लेखा सदस्य/ PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:

These are appeals by the Revenue directed against respective orders of learned CIT(A) pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively. 2. The common grounds of appeals read as under: -

2 | P a g e & 523/Mum/2018 Pancard Clubs Ltd. “For Assessment Year 2012-13

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the receipt on account of advance sale of room nights is not a revenue receipt without appreciating the fact that the principle business of assessee is to provide accommodation and other facilities to tourist members and assessee is debiting all the expenses relatable to these receipts.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision for Holiday Scheme Surrender Value' is an allowable expenditure.

For Assessment Year 2014-15

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the receipt on account of advance sale of room nights is not a revenue receipt without appreciating the fact that the principle business of assessee is to provide accommodation and other facilities to tourist members

3 | P a g e & 523/Mum/2018 Pancard Clubs Ltd. and assessee is debiting all the expenses relatable to these receipts.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision for Holiday Scheme Surrender Value' is an allowable expenditure."

3.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice being served. The learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT and Hon’ble High court in assessee’s own case. We may gainfully refer to the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12 by the order dated 01.07.2017 as under: - “5. We find that the dispute on the treatment of advances against sale of room nights and the claim of pro-rata deduction for the difference in the amount paid and the surrender value of the room nights, came up for the first time in assessment year 2004-05 by way of initiation of proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner. The Tribunal vide its order dated 16/03/2011(supra) dealt with the merits of the stand of the Commissioner, which is in consonance with what the Assessing

4 | P a g e & 523/Mum/2018 Pancard Clubs Ltd. Officer done in the impugned order and the Tribunal disagreed with the stand of the Revenue. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its order dated 09/05/2014(supra) upheld the proposition that having regard to the terms and conditions of the holiday scheme, no income accrues to the assessee at the time of receipt of the advances. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court took note of the factual finding arrived by the Tribunal that the scheme obligated the assessee to refund not only the advance payment, but also the surrender value. Notably, for assessment years 2004-05,2005- 06,2007-08 and 2009-10 also, the Hon'ble High Court in ITA No.1515,1516,1594 and 1678 of 2014 dated 17/02/2017 has approved the decision of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, it clearly implies that the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 09/05/2015(supra) and 17/02/2017(supra) in the assessee’s own case and, therefore, we find no error on

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →