S.I.Karthi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1947/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90589 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U ANJANEYALU
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS JHARNA B HARILAL
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ , % ' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS . 1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11) MR.S.I. KARTHI, 15/7, KRISHNA STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(5) 46, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI.34. PAN:BACPS5964G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS.JHARNA B.HARILAL, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. U.ANJANEYALU, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH JUNE, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH JUNE, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)(C)-II, CHENNAI DATED 26.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS SAME TO THAT OF T HE ASSESSEE MR. R.S.SURIYA IN ITA NOS. 1944 TO 1946/MD S/2014. IN THIS CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CERTAIN AD VANCES FROM PRODUCERS AND THUS ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE 2 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 PRODUCERS FOR ACTING IN THEIR FILMS WERE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLO WING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 3. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT FACTS ARE BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASES IN ITA NOS. 1944 TO 1946/MDS/2014 IN THE CASE OF MR. R.S.SURIYA , AND SHE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR DELETION OF ADDITIONS. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 10,00,000/- AS TOKEN ADVANCE AND THIS AMOUNT WAS OFFERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEN THE PRODUCTION OF THE FILM STARTED ON 16.12.20 08. INSOFAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE IS F OLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE AMOUNTS REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME, AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE 4 0 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED, WHICH IS THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF R.S.SURIYA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN ITA NOS. 1241 & 1242/MDS /2013 SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE REVENUES A RGUMENT 3 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 WAS NEGATED. FURTHER REFERRING TO PAGE 53 OF THE PA PER BOOK, WHICH IS THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE O F ROBIN NANA BHAI BHATT VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2456/MUM/2012 DATED 27.11.2013, SHE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AF ORESAID CASE HELD THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING C ASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, ADVANCES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PERFORMED THE WORK. THEREFORE, THE SHE PLEADS FOR DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HE PLACES RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. D.MEENA VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS. 1624 & 1625/MDS/2000 DATED 19.7.20 05 AND THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF LAKSHMINARAYANA FILMS VS. CIT (244 ITR 344) IN SUP PORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT ADVANCES SHALL HAVE TO BE TREAT ED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND UPON PERUSING ORDE RS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON, W E FIND THAT 4 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 THE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF R.S.SURIYA FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IN ITA NOS.596 & 597/MDS/2009 D ATED 21.08.2009. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ADVANCES WER E RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAKING UP THE ASSIGNME NT OF ACTING IN THE FILMS IN FUTURE. THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRODUCERS OF THE FILMS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE ADVANCES AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEETS AND IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACT THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS THESE ADVANCES WERE RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROPOSED ASSIGNMEN TS WERE NOT MATERIALIZED THE ADVANCE TOKEN RECEIPT CAN NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RELIED UPON THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L 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 COMPLETION OF CERTAIN FORMALITIES IN FUTURE. THERE FORE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS WOULD BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAI D AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED ON COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIO NS AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND CANNOT BE SAID AS ACCRUED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. IN OUR VIEW, TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPO N BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE BECAUSE IN THE PR ESENT CASE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THERE IS NO DATES ON WHICH THE AMOUNTS TO BE PAID ON FULFILLMEN T OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. 6 . FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THESE TOKEN AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR GIVING PREFERENCE TO THE PARTIES FOR MAKING HIMSELF AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS, IF FINALIZED AFTE R DELIBERATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS FACTORS AND 5 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 CRITERIA. WHICH MEANS THAT BY RECEIVING THESE ADVA NCES AS TOKEN AMOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE IS BINDING NOT TO TA KE UP ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE PROPOS ED ASSIGNMENT? IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ON AC CEPTING THE AMOUNTS, T HE ASSIGNMENTS ITSELF IS NOT FINALIZED BUT THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS ALSO DEPENDANT ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MUTUALLY BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED TH ESE AMOUNTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS THE PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT WERE NOT MATERIALIZED THEN IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO TREAT THESE AMOUNTS AS IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI S.PRIYADARSAN VS. JCIT (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 5 AS UN DER:- '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 RS.25 LAKHS IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY HIM FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 ST MARCH, H97. AS PER THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY THAT PART OF THE ADVANCE IS TREATED AS INCOME FOR WHICH HE RENDERED SERVICE TO THE GIVER OF THE ADVANCE AND THE BALANCE WAS SHOWN AS CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNTS. SO WHEN ONCE THE SAID ADVANCE IS SHOWN AS CREDIT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID ADVANCE GIVERS WERE EXAMINED AND THAT SERVICE WAS RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM DURING THE PERIOD. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT 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.' 6 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 7. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF K.K. KHULLAR VS. DEPU TY 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 SUBMISSIONS. WE MAY REFER TO THE CHARGING SECTION 4 OF THE ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT INCOME TAX SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR (IT THE RATE OR RATES PROVIDED IN ANY CENTRAL ACTS IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF EVERY PERSON. SECTION 5 DEALS WITH THE 'SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME', WHICH IS DEFINED IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN TERMS OF ACCRUAL, DEEMED ACCRUAL, RECEIPT AND DEEMED RECEIPT, ETC. SECTION 145 DEALS WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS 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 INCOME AND RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT IS NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE LEVY OF THE TAX. IN THE CASE OF MESSRS. SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND COMPANY [1962] 46 ITR 144, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TWO POINTS OF TIME ON WHICH THE LIABILITY TO TAX IS ATTRACTED NAMELY - (I) ACCRUAL OF INCOME OR (II) RECEIPT OF INCOME. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS 'INCOME'. IT MAY BE EMPHASIZED THAT 7 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 IT IS ACCRUAL OF INCOME OR RECEIPT OF INCOME THAT CAN BECOME 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 THE ENTIRE INCOME RECEIVED, WHETHER ARREAR OR ADVANCE OF INCOME HAS TO BE SHOWN AS INCOME UNDER THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FOR SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE AMOUNT RELATABLE TO THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN AS INCOME, THE REASON BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THAT AMOUNT FROM THE CLIENT IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED. IN OTHER WORDS, DEBT TO 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 8 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 BECOME THE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE HYBRID SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ON THE GROUND THAT THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS AS RETAINERSHIP FEES WAS NOT DECLARED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT 9. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY OF ASSESSMENTS, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ITSELF MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG [1992] 193 ITR 321{ THAT THEIR FINDINGS SHOULD 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 OF THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON MERITS ON THIS ASPECT, THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO GIVE A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND IN THIS YEAR TO FOLLOW THE PAST OR FUTURE ASSESSMENT 1/ 9 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 8. SINCE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HAND ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DELHI BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL; WE HOLD THAT WH EN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AS THESE ADVANCE RECEIPT AS LIABILITY IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND TILE ADVANCES WERE NOT ON THE FINALIZATION OF ANY AGREEMENT BUT WERE RECEIVED AS A TOKEN AMOUN T FOR GIVING A PRIORITY TO THE PARTIES TO NEGOTIATE FOR F UTURE ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT FINALIZING THE TERMS AND CONDITI ONS. WHEN THE FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS WERE NOT MATERIALIZED AND THE AMOUNTS WERE RETURNED, THEN THE SAID ADVANCES CANN OT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, QUA THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDITION IN THIS RESPECT. 6. SIMILARLY, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.1329/MDS/2009 BY ORDER DATED 19.01.2010 HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADVANCE PROFESSIONAL F EE OF RS.55 LAKHS AS INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR RELYING ON HIS OWN DECISION IN ASSESSEE'S APPE ALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06. IT IS C LEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THA T THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. PHOTON FACTORY AND M/S.STUDIO GREEN WERE NOT AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR FI LMS. ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT INCOME COULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED TILL THE ARTIST HAD ACTED IN THE FILM, F OR 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 WA S FOLLOWING THE CASH SYSTEM, IT WAS NOT OBLIGED TO CO NSIDER ALL SUMS RECEIVED BY IT AS INCOME UNLESS SUCH RECEI PT COULD BE CATEGORIZED AS INCOME. WHETHER IT IS CASH SYSTEM OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM, A RECEIPT CAN BE TREAT ED AS INCOME ONLY IF SUCH INCOME CAN BE CONSIDERED AS RECOGNIZED. JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE AD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF ADVANCE SUCH SUM CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME, ONLY FOR A REASONING THAT IT WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS REASON THAT IN 10 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, THIS TRIBUN AL HAD HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO TREAT PROFESSIONAL ADVANCE RECEIVED AS INCOME, UNLESS UN TIL 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 TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BASED ON HIS OWN DECISION FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH WAS LATER REVERSED BY THE TRIB UNAL. AS FOR THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE REVENUE ON THE DECISIONS OF A. RAMKI (SUPRA) AND D .MEENA; THE FORMER CASE WAS DECIDED RELYING ON THE LATTER DECISION. IF WE ADVERT TO THE DECISION OF D.MEENA'S CASE, THERE THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ALSO A CINE ARTIST, HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE ON THE BASIS OF A CONTRACT FOR ACT ING IN A FILM. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS A SUBSISTENT CONT RACT FOR- ACTING IN A PARTICULAR- FILM, WHEREAS IN THE GIVEN CASE THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES WITH NO CLE AR 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 FAC TS. IN ANY EVENT, SINCE THIS TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS ON SIMILAR FACT SITUATION, WE FIND NO COMPELLING RE ASONS TO DEPART FROM THE VIEW TAKEN EARLIER. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT AMOUNT OF ` 55 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS HIS INCOME F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUCH ADDITION STANDS DELETED. GROUNDS NUMBER 2 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION RELIED BY THE DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF MS.D.MEENA (SUPRA) A ND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMINARAYANA FILMS (SUPRA) WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT 11 ITA NOS.1947 TO 1949/MDS/2014 BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESPECTI VE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISIONS, WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLO W THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .