ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI V. JACKIE SHROFF, MUMBAI

ITA 2915/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7940 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABDUL HAKEEM M
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' J ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2915 /MUM/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) A C I T - 16(1) ROOM NO. 439, 4TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF 901, 9TH FLOOR, FREEDA ONE CARTER ROAD, BANDRA (W) , MUMBAI 400050 PAN AAJPS6596A APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI ABDUL HAKEEM M RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PANKAJ JAIN DATE OF HEARING: 30 .0 8 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 . 09.2018 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 4, MUMBAI DATED 09.01.2017 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UND ER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER 'THE ACT') DATED 05.03.2015. 2. THE R EVENUE, WHILE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECT ING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.96,17,000/ - WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT; SUCH DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTRARY T O THE DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND A.Y. 2006 - 07. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECT ING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000/ - AND THUS DISTURBING THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY DIRECTED NOT TO DISTURB THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 2 AND ADD TO IT ONLY THOSE ADVANCES WHICH WERE NOT OFFERED TO TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUB SEQUENT YEARS 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IF THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REDUCED BY THIS DIRECTI O N, THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2005 - 06 AND AY 2006 - 07 BECOMES REDUNDANT AS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2005 - 06 AND AY 2006 - 07 HAVE BEEN OFFERED IN 2008 - 09 AND HEN CE NEED NOT BE TAXED IN THOSE YEARS SEPARATELY. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IF THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS REDUCED FOR THAT YEAR, SOME OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WOULD ESCAPE THE TAXATION BRACKET ALTOGETHER. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED , THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A FILM ACTOR BY PROFESSION HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 ON 26.09.2008 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 11,31,443/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A PECULIAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS PER WHICH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE PRODUCERS OF FILMS WAS SHO WN BY HIM A S AN ADVANCE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND WAS OFFERED FOR TAX ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING FILM WAS COMPLETED AND RELEASED . THE AO BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THUS CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT S RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS HIS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON FURTHER V ERIFICATION , IT WAS GATHERED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE TILL A.Y 2011 - 12 HAD FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID PECULIAR METHOD OF OFFERING HIS INCOME FOR TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING FILM WAS COMPLETED AND RELEASED , AND THEREAFTER FROM A.Y. 2012 - 13 HAD OFFERED THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR TAX IN ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 3 THE RELEVANT YEAR OF RECEIPT ITSELF. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY HIM THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE FILM PRODUCERS WERE SHOWN AS ADVANC E IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND WERE SHOWN AS INCOME ONLY ON COMPLETION AND RELEASE OF THE CORRESPONDING FILMS . IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT EVEN THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS WAS NOT CLAIMED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR OF RECEIP T AND CREDIT FOR THE SAME WAS CLAIMED ONLY IN THE RELEVANT YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAX ON COMPLETION AND RELEASE OF THE FILM. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT IF THE AFORESAID ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, WHICH WAS CONSIST ENTLY BEING FOLLOWED BY HIM WAS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE ADVANCE AMOUNTS WERE TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS ON RECEIPT BASIS, THEN THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION AND RELEASE OF FILM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION WERE ALSO LIABLE TO BE REDUCED , AS THE SAME WERE NOT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT WERE RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, THE AO NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE , DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 53,86,566/ - WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRODUCERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION B UT WAS CHARACTERISED AND SHOWN BY HIM AS ADVANCE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE AO, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 20 . 12 .201 0 , DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,11,09 , 100/ - . 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED TWO FOLD CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIZ. (I) THAT AS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME CRYSTALLISED ONLY ON COMPLETI ON AND RELEASE OF THE FILM S , HENCE NO INFIRMITY EMERGED FROM OFFERING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PRODUCERS OF FILMS TO TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FILMS WERE RELEASED, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE SAID METHOD WAS CONSISTENTLY BEING FOLLOWED; AND (II) THAT IN C ASE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOW ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 4 TO BE REJECTED DURING THE YEAR, THEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000/ - WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND WAS OFFERED FOR TAX DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN WHICH THE CORRE SPONDING FILMS WERE COMPLETED AND RELEASED WERE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM HIS INCOME . THE CIT(A), AFTER NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS, ACCEPTED THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 53,86,566 / - . 6. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSE E S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 , WHEREIN THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO BRING TO TAX ONLY THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED 29 - 8 - 2012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 6457 & 6468/MUM/2008, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE SAME VIDE PARA NO. 8 AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE COUNSELS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INCOME FOR THE YEAR WHICH INCLU DES AN AMOUNT OF RS. 28,48,000/ - OUT OF OPENING ADVANCES TO WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 53,52,000/ - HAS BEEN ADDED OUT OF CURRENT YEARS ADVANCE TOTALING TO RS. 82,00,000/ - . THE TOTAL ADVANCES RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AT RS. 1,10,10,062/ - . WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL THAT SIMILAR PRACTICE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE PAST BY THE DEPARTMENT AS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 145 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN AMENDED W.E.F 01.04.1997 WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION THE ASSESSEE CAN FOLLOW EITHER CASH SYSTEM OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEREBY PROHIBITING THE HYBRID SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING IN EARLIER YEARS. THE CIT[A] WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT . WE CANNOT FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERATE VIEW, THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, IS FAULTY. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES ARE TAKEN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF THE RELEASE OF THE FILMS WHICH IN ITSELF IS A F AULTY PRACTICE AS ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 5 THE RELEASE OF THE FILMS ARE NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS THE SOLE PREROGATIVE OF THE PRODUCERS OF THE FILMS, WHERE AS THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF THE ADVANCES FROM THE DAY HE GETS THEM. IN THE FILM LINE, PRODUCERS SIGN ACTORS AND PAY FOR THEIR SERVICES AS PER THEIR BOX OFFICE REPUTATION, THEREFORE ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ACTOR IS ACCORDING TO HIS USP AT THE BOX OFFICE WHICH IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENTS. WE FIND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1,10,10,062.00 OUT OF WHICH HE HAS ALREADY OFFERED RS.53,52,000.00 IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME . THE COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED RS 27,58,062.00 IN A.Y 2006 - 07 AND RS.2,50,000.00 IN A.Y 2007 - 08 OUT OF THE ADVANCE OF RS. 1,10,10,062.00 . IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THIS ISSUE NEEDS FURTHER VERIFICATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILES OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT HE HAS OFFERED OUT OF THE TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS. 1,10,10,062.00, RS 27,58,062.00 IN A.Y 2006 - 07 AND RS.2,50,000.00 IN A.Y 2007 - 08 AND IF FOUND CORRECT ONLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME . THIS WILL ALSO COVER THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS FOX MONDAL & CO., IN ITA 3377 / DEL / 2006 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. STILL FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07, THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOLLOWED ITS E ARLIER VIEW TAKEN IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 . IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACT S THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIR ECTION THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ASSESSED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. THAT P URSUANT TO THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE AO PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) R.W.S . 254 , D ATED 05.03.2015. HOWEVER, THE AO NOT FINDING ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR , THUS ONCE AGAIN CAME UP WITH AN ADDITION OF RS. 53,86,566/ - AS WAS EARLIER MADE TO THE RETURN ED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,11,09,100/ - . 9. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 ASSAILED THE SAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), AFTER NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS, WAS PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 6 C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRODUCERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT ON THE BASIS OF CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS BUT WERE OFFERED FOR TAX BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF FILM WERE ALSO LIABLE TO BE REDUCED FROM HIS INCOME , FAILING WHICH IT WOULD CLEARLY TANT AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), WHILE CONCLUDING AS HEREIN ABOVE, WAS OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THE MANDATE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REQUIRE D THE SAME TO BE DONE WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO ITS O RDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO TAX THE ADVANCES/RECEIPTS OF RS. 53,86,566/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHILE FOR AT THE SAME TIME REDUCE THE AMOUNT S AGGREGATING TO RS. 96,17,000/ - WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS BUT HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , FOR THE REASON THAT THE FILMS WERE COMPLETED AND RELEASED DURING THE YEAR. 10. AGGRIEVED, THE R EVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEFORE US. THE LEARNE D D.R., AT THE VERY OUTSET OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 96,17,000/ - MADE BY THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARN ED D.R. THAT THE CIT(A) HAD MISCONCEIVED OR RATHER MISCONSTRUED THE OBSERVATION S RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL AND HAD WRONGLY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 96,17,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED D.R. IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION AVERRED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2005 - 06 AND A.Y. 2006 - 07, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO WHERE REVEALED ANY SUCH OBSERVATION /DIRECTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS TO BE REDUCED. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE A FORESAID CONTENTION , IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 7 CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 11. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R ) FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ONLY THE AMOUNT S RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION WERE TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT AS THE AO HAD ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, HIS ORDER TO THE EXTENT NOT BEING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECTED BY T HE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION HAD RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THE C OORDINATE B ENCH ES OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND A.Y. 2006 - 07. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. A.Y 2008 - 09 , IT EMERGES THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRODUCERS OF FILMS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE AFORESAID OBSERVATION WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THE VIEW EARLIER TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED PRECEDING YEARS I.E A.Y 2005 - 06 AND A.Y 2006 - 07 . WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 96,17,000/ - , SPECIFICALLY WHEN, AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, THERE WAS A CLEAR DIRECTION BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BACKDROP OF THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HIM WAS TO TAKE WITHIN ITS SWEEP ONLY THE AMOUNT S WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE SAID YEAR. RATHER, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO NOT ONLY MILITATES AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL , BUT EVEN OTHERWISE IF THE SAME IS ALLOWED TO ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 8 PERPETUATE , IT WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD TO DOUBLE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DELIBERATED ON THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CAS H SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THUS, AS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE SCOPE OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED B Y HIM DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, THE APPREHENS ION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE DELETION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 96,17,000/ - FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD LEAD TO ESCAPEMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT FROM BEING TAXED IS ABSOLUTELY MISCONCEIVED. WE FIND THA T THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE B ENCH ES IN THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND A.Y. 2006 - 07 HAD SPECIFICALLY IN THE SAME TERMS DIRECTED TH E AO TO TAX THE ADVANCE AMOUNT, IF ANY, PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAD REMAINED TO BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WE, THUS ARE NEITHER IMPRESSED BY THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED D.R. , NOR ARE ABLE TO PERSUADE OURSEL VES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. THUS, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O, UPHOLD THE SAME. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 ACIT - 16(1) VS. SHRI JACKIE SHROFF ITA NO.2915/MUM/2017 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - 4 , MUMBAI 4. THE PR. CIT - 16 , MUMBAI 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.