Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 442 - ITAT CHENNAI

2015 (9) TMI 442 - ITAT CHENNAI - [2015] 44 ITR (Trib) 93 (ITAT [Chen]) - Accrual of income - Advance received by the assessee for his professional work - whether has to be assessed in the year of receipt or in the year of performing the contract? - Held that:- None of the advances received by the assessee are assessable as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2005-06 as it was received only as advance for performing projects in future. Advances received cannot be assessed in the year o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals)- II, Chennai dated 23.08.2011 for the assessment year 2005-06. The only issue in both the appeal and cross objection is that whether the advance received by the assessee for his professional work has to be assessed in the year of receipt or in the year of performing the contract. 2. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue in the appeal has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of R.S.Suriya in ITA Nos. 1944 to 1946/Mds/2014 dated 30th June, 2015, who is a film actor w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly refunded in June/July, 2005 and with regard to advance of ₹ 3,00,000/- received from Film Workes, counsel submits that the amount is still outstanding as on date, therefore placing reliance on the order of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of R.S.Suriya (supra), counsel submits that advances received by the assessee are not taxable in the assessment year 2005-06. 3. Departmental Representative supports the order of Assessing Officer. 4. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eals) sustained the addition only to the extent of ₹ 3,00,000/- and deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,50,000/- in respect of advances received from Sri Rajalakshmi P.Ltd. observing as under:- 12. I have considered the facts and the submissions of the ld.A.R. and the ACIT. The issue is recognition of income in the case of a cine artiste who follows cash system of accounting. In the two decisions referred to by the A.O and the appellant (D.Meena and R.S.Suriya), the Hon ble ITA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e for future assignments if finalized after deliberations and consideration of various factors and criteria and held that such advances received as token amounts for giving priority to the parties to negotiate future assignments without finalizing the terms and conditions cannot be treated as income on receipt basis. 13. From the two decisions of the Hon ble ITAT, it is clear that an amount received would be treated as income if it is for a project which is known at the time of the receipt of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his advance the decision of Hon ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of D.Meena is squarely applicable. For the advances received from Mis Sri Rajalakshmi (P) Ltd it is the submission of the ld.A.R. that the advances were received only for exploration of possibility for working in a project and as no project materialised, the advances were subsequently refunded. The decision of the Hon ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of R.S.Suriya is therefore applicable to the fact of these advances. 15. Accordingly, I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 dated 30th June, 2015 has considered an identical issue and held that advances received cannot be assessed in the year of receipt but has to be assessed in the year of performing contract. The co-ordinate Bench considered its earlier decisions while deciding the issue as under:- 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied on. In this case, search was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 19.01.2010 and assessments were completed for the assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r and when the matter carried on appeal, the Tribunal deleted the additions for these assessment years in ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Mds/2009 dated 21.08.2009 for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 and by ITA No.1329/Mds/2009 dated 19.01.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. We also find from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that though assessee produced these orders of the Tribunal, he failed to follow these orders stating that assessee has not produced the written agre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee and producers of films were entered into. Therefore, in the absence of any written agreement the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not have tried to distinguish the orders of the Tribunal and refused to follow the same. On going through the orders of the Tribunal, we find that the issue in appeal is already decided in the proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. The co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Mds/2009 dated 21.08.2009 while arriving at the conclusion th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the peculiar fact that in the subsequent years these advances were returned by the assessee as the proposed assignments were not materialized the advance token receipt cannot partake the character of income for the assessment year under consideration. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has relied upon the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakshminarayana Films Vs. CIT (supra), wherein the amounts were to be received by the assessee as per the written agreement and on complet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case there is no written agreement as well as there is no dates on which the amounts to be paid on fulfillment of certain conditions. 6. From the facts of the present case, we find that these token amounts were received by the assessee for giving preference to the parties for making himself available for future assignments, if finalized after deliberations and consideration of various factors and criteria. Which means that by receiving these advances as token amounts, the assessee is binding no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me of the assessee. In the case of Shri S.Priyadarsan Vs. JCIT (supra), the Tribunal has held in para 5 as under:- 5. After carefully considering the record available with the Tribunal and in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, we find that the assessee had shown the disputed amount of ₹ 25 lakhs in the list of sundry creditors in the balance sheet filed by him for the period ending 31st March, H97. As per the contention of the assessee only that part of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decision cited supra there is no part of the said advance accrued to the assessee to constitute income to be chargeable to tax during the period. Thereby the addition of ₹ 25 lakns to the returned income of the assessee is unsustainable under law and it is to be set aside. 7. Similarly, in the case of K.K. Khullar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Delhi Benches of this Tribunal has held in paragraph 8 and 9 as under: 8. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ness or profession or income from other sources . Thus, while sections 4 and 5 deal with the scope of income and its charge to income tax, section 1.45 is a procedural section regarding the method to be followed for recording of income in the books of account. It is no doubt true that for the assessment year 1997-1998 and onwards, the assessee can follow either the cash or the mercantile system of accounting and the hybrid system of accounting is prohibited. However, what is to be taxed is incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the subject matter of tax and it is the income which has to be recorded as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee in view of section 145 of the Act, because the substance of the matter is income . Therefore, there is an infirmity in the order of the learned Commission of Inome Tax (Appeals) in paragraph 4.7 where it was stated that the entire amount received whether arrears or advance is to be shown as income under the cash system of accounting. The correct position would be that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the extent of the amount pertaining to services rendered only got vested in the assessee. The rest of the amount was taken as liability to be adjusted in subsequent years as and when the service was rendered. It is but clear that the excess amount would have to be returned in case the service was not performed in subsequent year and therefore, in respect of such amount no debt came into existence in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this amount did not become the income. Accordingly, we are of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld not be taken as a general proposition of law to be followed in every case as it was confirmed to the facts of that case. We may add that if a manifestly wrong decision has been taken by the Assessing Officer in one year or in a number of years/ it will not bind the Assessing Officer in tile assessment of a subsequent year because there cannot be any estoppel against the law. However, in this case, we find the earlier and subsequent assessment were made on correct appreciation of the principle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iability in his balance sheet and tile advances were not on the finalization of any agreement but were received as a token amount for giving a priority to the parties to negotiate for future assignment without finalizing the terms and conditions. When the future assignments were not materialized and the amounts were returned, then the said advances cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Accordingly, we aside the orders of lower authorities, qua this issue and delete the addition in this re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order itself that the amounts received by the assessee from M/s. Photon factory and M/s.Studio Green were not against any particular films. Assessee s contention that income could not be recognized till the artist had acted in the film, for which the advances were received, carries great strength. Storyline was not fixed, neither was the name, not even the co-artists were known. Just because assessee was following the cash system, it was not obliged to consider all sums received by it as income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eat professional advance received as income, unless until proposed assignments had materialized. Though the Ld. DR put great efforts to submit that fact situation for the impugned assessment year could have been different from that of the earlier years, which was dealt with by the Tribunal in ITA No. 596 597/Mds/2009 as aforesaid. We find that Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment year based on his own decision for the earlier years, which was la .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d from two parties with no clear crystallization of film or the storyline or other aspens of the proposed film. Hence, we are of the opinion that D. Meena s case (supra) is not applicable here on facts. In any event, since this Tribunal had taken a view in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case for earlier years on similar fact situation, we find no compelling reasons to depart from the view taken earlier. Therefore, we find that amount of ₹ 55 lakhs received by the assessee as adva .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version