DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DELOITE CORPORATE FINANCE SERVICES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2010- 11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 2 [CIT(A)], Mumbai Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/IT-25/2013-14 dated 14/03/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) on 06/03/2013 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed cross objections against the same. The effective grounds raised in revenue’s appeal reads as under:- I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the AO has not established that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was with an intention to defer the tax liabilities and there is no loss to revenue as the tax rate is the same in both assessment years without considering the fact that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting as such, the revenue has to be recognized as and when the work is finished as per the terms of the contract.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 14/03/2016 where Ld. CIT(A) relying on the orders for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10 allowed the stand of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

The Ld. Authorized Counsel for Assessee [AR], at the outset, drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 and submitted that the issue stood covered in assessee’s favor by the cited judgment and therefore, the factual matrix being the identical, the same should be followed. The Ld. DR fairly conceded the same.

Upon perusal of order of this Tribunal in 36/Mum/2015 order dated 15/03/2017 for AY 2009-10, as placed on record, we find that the matter has been settled in assessee’s favour by the Tribunal by making following observations:- 6.1. It is noted that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.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., The tax rate in both the years is same, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A).

Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed which makes assessee’s cross objections infructuous and hence dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th March, 2018.