DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Getit Infomediary Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1443/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74015 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: T R TALWAR O OO
• Keywords: Business income; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1443/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 200 6 - 0 7 ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S GETIT INFOMEDIARY LTD., 8-B, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN : AABCG702L) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SH. T.R. TALWAR, ADVOCATE O OO ORDER RDER RDER RDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-XV), NE W DELHI DATED 18.12.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,75,51,561/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIPT FOR WHICH WORK WAS YET TO BE COMPLE TED. 3. IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAME D VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. A CT. THEREAFTER, THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2010 WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BY WAY OF T HIS ORDER ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE ON THE LIMITED ISSUE FOR C ARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND ENQUIRY TO DETERMINE THE TRUE VALUE AND ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 2 CORRECTNESS ON THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT METED OUT TO AMOUNT OF RS. 17.551.561/- COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS IN RESPECT OF WORK YET TO BE COMPLETED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SE CTION 263 HAS CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AO IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER ON THE AB OVE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AND TH E ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD. ANY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD T O THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FIGURES, PROPER APPLICATION OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-9 ON THE ADVANCES RECEIVED E TC. MAY BE LOOKED INTO BY THE AO AT THE STAGE OF REASSESSMENT AS PER LAW. 3.1 PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE SET ASIDE BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP BY THE AO. THE AO NOTED THAT HE HAS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AND IT IS FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAS C OLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,551,561/- FOR THE WOR K WHICH WERE YET TO BE COMPLETED. THE ABOVE INCOME WERE TREATED AS PRE-BILLING AND NOT RECOGNIZED AS INCOME OR BUSINESS RECEIPT DU RING THE YEAR. THE AO OPINED THAT AS THE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING MER CANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS RECEIPTS OF INCOME AND OFFERED TO TAX. 3.2 ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCAN TILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL ADVANCES RECEIVED OR PRE-BILLING ADVANCES RECEIVED HAVE TO BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE SU BMITTED ELABORATE CONTENTION REGARDING AS-9. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNI SED REVENUE ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 3 ONLY WHEN THE MATTER INVOLVED WAS INSERTED IN WHITE / YELLOW PAGES DIRECTORY AND NEWSPAPER ON COMPLETION BASIS. ADVA NCES RECEIVED RELATING TO DIRECTORIES NOT YET COMPLETED ARE TREAT ED AS PRE-BILLING AND RECOGNISED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR IN WHICH DIREC TORIES ARE COMPLETED. THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 175. 51 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED AS A DOCUM ENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF AMOUNTS PURELY IN THE NATU RE OF ADVANCE CLASSIFIED AS PRE-BILLING BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTH ER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING THIS METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION CONSISTENTLY FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AN D THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THIS ACCOUNTING POLICY. 3.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, AO NOTED THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SEEN FROM THE POINT OF APPLICABILITY OF AS-9 ON THE ISSUE OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER THE AO DID NOT EX AMINE THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE AS-9. HE OPINED THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTH ER OPINED THAT INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDE THAT INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTING, THE ANNUA L PROFITS ARE WORKED OUT ON DUE OR ACCRUAL BASIS I.E. AFTER PROVI DING FOR ALL EXPENSES FOR WHICH A LEGAL LIABILITY HAS ARISEN AN D TAKING CREDIT FOR ALL RECEIPTS THAT HAVE BECOME DUE REGARDLESS OF THE IR ACTUAL RECEIPT OR PAYMENT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS WHICH FORM A PART OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 4 COMPANY COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,75,51,561/- FOR THE WORK IN RESPECT OF WHICH WERE YET TO BE COM PLETED. AO HELD THAT AS THE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE ABOVE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,75,55,561/- RECEI VED FROM CUSTOMERS WAS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND WAS ADDED TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TOWARDS AS-9 AS UNDER:- .....ADVERTISING AND INSURANCE AGENCY COMMISSIONS REVENUE SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SERVICE IS COMPLETED. FOR ADVERTISING AGENCIES, MEDIA COMMISSIONS WILL NORMALLY BE RECOGNISED WHEN THE RELATED ADVERTISEMENT OR COMMERCIAL APPEARS BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND THE NECESSARY INTIMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY, AS OPPOSED TO PRODUCTION COMMISSION, WHICH WILL BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. INSURANCE AGENCY COMMISSIONS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED ON THE EFFECTIVE COMMENCEMENT OR RENEWAL DATES OF THE RELATED POLICIES-------. ' THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS, AS TO WHEN THE INCOME IS 'EARNED' BY THE ASSESSEE AS CONTRASTED WITH 'ACCRUED' WHEN IT RECEIVES ADVANCE AMOUNT OR PARTIAL AMOUNT OR A PROMISE TO PAY FROM ITS CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS TO PRINT AND PUBLISH IN THE YELLOW PAGES OF THE FORTH COMING ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 5 DIRECTORIES, WHICH ARE YET TO BE COMPLETED AND CIRCULATED TO THE PUBLIC. THE ASSESSEE TREATS THESE ADVERTISEMENT RECEIPTS, RECEIVED AS ADVANCE PRE- BILLING PAYMENTS AND DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THESE RECEIPTS AS ITS ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE TILL THE DIRECTORIES ARE COMPLETE, PUBLISHED AND PUT TO PUBLIC CIRCULATION AS CONTRACTED WITH THE CUSTOMERS AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT INVOICE FOR CLASSIFIED LISTINGS-----' IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN (KHULLAR (K.K) V DCLT (2008) 304 ITR (AT) 295 (DEL) HELD THAT: 'WHERE AN ADVOCATE RECEIVES ADVANCE FEES FROM CLIENTS, THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED CANNOT BE TREATED AS HAVING ACCRUED TO THE ASSESEE. IT COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME AT THE YEAR IN WHICH SERVICE IS RENDERED. ' 4.4 THE LD. AR DREW MY ATTENTION TO SCHEDULE 21 OF NOTES ON ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 9 RELATING TO REVENUE REORGANIZATION WHICH HAS LED TO THE CURRENT CONTROV ERSY, WHICH AND IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ------ THE COMPANY ACCOUNTS FOR ALL REVENUE RELATI NG TO INSERTIONS IN WHILE/YELLOW PAGES DIRECTORY AND NEWS PAPER ON COMPLETION BASIS. REVENUES RELATING TO DIRECTORI ES NOT YET COMPLETED ARE TREATED AS PRE-BILLING AND RECOGN IZED AS INCOME IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN . WHICH DIRECTOR IES ARE COMPLETED-----.' ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 6 4.5 THE LD. AR INFORMED THAT OUT OF THE IMPUGNED A MOUNT OF RS.1,75,51,561 THE ASSESEE HAS RECOGNIZED AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,09,040 PRE-BILLING ADVANCE AS SALES IN FINANC IAL YEAR 2006-07 AND FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,23,42,521/ - AS SALES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. 5.1 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND RELEVANT CASE L AWS IN THE MATTER. I FIND THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, RELATING TO PRE-BILLING AD VANCES FOR PUBLISHING ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE YELLOW DIRECTO RIES IN THE YEAR IN WHICH DIRECTORIES ARE PUBLISHED, CONSIS TENTLY. THIS STAND IS BEING CONSISTENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL. ACCORDING TO THIS, THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE ADVERTISING IS BOOKED BY THE APPELLA NT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ADVERTISEMENT IS PUBLISHED. THE SAME PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO. IT IS THUS NOT THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BOOKED ANY PRE-BILLING ADVANCES A S INCOME AT ALL, SINCE THE SAME HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN A.Y.2007-08 (RS.52,09,040) AND IN A.Y.2008-09 (RS.L,23,42,521). THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED THIS ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY. CONSISTENCY HAS B EEN SOUGHT TO BE A SOUND PRINCIPLE BY SEVERAL COURTS AN D PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS CIT (1992) 193 IT R 321 - 329 (SC) IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT IN THE MATTER. THE PRACTICE OF THE APPELLANT IS TO FOLLOW ACCOUNTING S TANDARD (AS) 9 WHICH PROVIDES THAT 'IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISE MENT ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 7 COMMISSIONS REVENUE SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THE SERVICES COMPLETED.' IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE ADVERTISEMENT IS PUBLISHED IN THE DIRECTORY PUBLISH ED BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER AN Y INCOME WAS CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER . FOR EVERY FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME IS BEING BOOKED WH EN CRYSTALISED AT THE TIME OF PUBLISHING HE ADVERTISEM ENT IN THE DIRECTORY PUBLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SEEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW O F APPLICABILITY OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-9 ON THE IS SUE OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, A S PER NOTES ON ACCOUNTS WHICH FORM A PART OF ANNUAL ACCOU NTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,51,561 FOR THE WORK IN RESPECT OF WHICH 'E YET TO BE COMPLETED. AS THE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING THE SAID ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 CONSISTENT LY, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A D BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,75,51,561 BY TREATING TH E PRE- BILLING RECEIPTS OF ADVANCE AS INCOME OF YEAR, WHIC H WERE DULY TAXED IN THE RELEVANT YEARS IN WHICH REVENUE W AS RECOGNIZED IN TERMS OF AS-9 BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y .2007- 08 AND A.Y.2008-09. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT SIGNIFIES THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 . HENCE, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE AO, PURSUANT TO SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. LD. DR FURTHER ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 8 SUBMITTED THAT NO INSTANCE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT WHE N THE ASSESSEE HAD TO RETURN THE ADVANCE RECEIVED. HENCE, HE SUB MITTED THAT THE AMOUNT AS AND WHEN RECEIVED SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATE D AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE AO MAY BE SUSTAINED. 7.1 LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING AS-9. THIS AS-9 MANDATES THA T REVENUE SHOULD BE RECOGNISED WHEN THE SERVICE IS COMPLETED. FOR A DVERTISING AGENCIES, MEDIA COMMISSIONS WILL NORMALLY BE RECOGN ISED WHEN THE RELATED ADVERTISEMENT OR COMMERCIAL APPEARS BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND THE NECESSARY INTIMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE AMOUNT IS RECEVIED TOWARDS ADVERTI SEMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS TO PRINT AND PUBLISH IN THE YELLOW PAGES OF THE FORTHCOMING DIRECTORIES, WHICH ARE YET TO BE COMPLE TED AND CIRCULATED TO THE PUBLIC. ASSESSEE TREATS THESE A DVERTISEMENT RECEIPTS, RECEIVED AS ADVANCE PRE-BILLING PAYMENTS AND DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THESE RECEIPTS AS ITS ADVERTISEMENT REVEN UE TILL THE DIRECTORIES ARE COMPLETE, PUBLISHED AND PUT TO PUB LIC CIRCULATION. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS. 175,51,561/- THE ASSE SSEE HAS RECOGNISED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 52,09,040/- PRE-BILLIN G ADVANCE AS SALES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 1,23,42,521/- AS SALES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-0 8. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTING HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PAST. HENCE, HE CONTENDED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SUSTA INED. 7.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN YELLOW PAGES DIREC TORY. ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 9 RECEIVES THE ADVANCE AMOUNT FROM CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT. ASSESSEE TREATS THIS ADVANCE AS AD VANCE FOR ADVERTISEMENT RECEIPTS AND RECOGNISES THE REVENUE A S INCOME WHEN THE DIRECTORIES ARE COMPLETE, PUBLISHED AND PUT TO PUBLIC CIRCULATION. THE ABOVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS-9 OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. THE SAID AS-9 INTER-ALIA MANDATES THAT FOR ADVT. AGENCY, MEDIA COMMISSION WILL NORMALLY BE RECOGNISED WHEN THE RELATED ADVERTISEMENTS OR COMMERCIAL APPEARS BEFORE THE PU BLIC AND THE NECESSARY INTIMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE AS-9 AND THE SAME IS ALSO MENTIONED IN SCH EDULE 21 TO THE NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN NOT EXAMININ G THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AS-9 ABOVE. LD. CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE ON THE TOUCH STONE OF AS-9 AND FOUND THE SAME TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEREWITH. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIN D OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT( A). FURTHERMORE, WE NOTE THAT OUT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOU NT OF RS. 17551561/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNISED AN AMOUNT O F RS. 5209040/- AS SALES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AN D FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12342521/- AS SALES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. 7.3 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ABOVE SYSTEM OF ACCOUN TING HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST A ND THE SAME WAS NEVER QUESTIONED. HENCE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATI ON IN THE CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING POLICY IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR B Y THE AO. HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ABOVE IS SUPPORTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. 358 ITR 295. IN THIS CASE IT WAS EXPOUNDED TH AT: (I) INCOME HAS ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 10 ACCRUED MUST BE CONSIDERED FROM A REALISTIC AND PRA CTICAL ANGLE. (II) DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE VERDICT IN SOME YEAR IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE VERDICT IN OTHER YEARS (III) D ISPUTE AS TO THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY WITH NO / MEAGRE TAX EFFECT SHOULD NO T BE RAISED BY DEPARTMENT. 7.4 LD. DRS SUBMISSION IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT AP PEALED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. HENCE, HE CANNOT APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, IN PURSUANCE TO LD. CITS ORDER U NDER SECTION 263. THIS HAS NO COGENCY AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SIMILA RLY, LD. DRS PLEA THAT SINCE THE ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS NOT REQUIRE D TO BE RETURNED, HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED AS IN COME IS ALSO NOT TENABLE. THE FACT THAT ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED CANNOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF ADVANCE AND IT SHALL REMAIN AS ADVANCE. 7.5 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/1/2014. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 17/1/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5.DR, IT AT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 1443/DEL/2013 11 +