Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-16(2), Hyderabad V. Monster.Com(India) Private Limited , Hyderabad

ITA 369/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2764 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KIRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 368 AND 369 OF 2020 MONSTER.COM INDIA P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.368 & 369/HYD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2016-17 & 2017-18 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1) HYDERABAD VS. MONSTER.COM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD PAN:AACCM3695G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI RAVI KIRAN, CIT (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SRI B. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY DATE OF HEARING: 21/06/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/06/2021 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. BOTH ARE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE A.YS 2016-17 & 2017-18 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-4, HYDERA BAD, DATED 20.02.2020. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL IS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 57 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT THE DELAY IS DUE TO COVID-19 LOCKDOWN. TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION AND AL SO THE WRIT PETITION NO. HIGH COURT DATED 25-11-2020 IN WRIT PE TITION N0.1 OF 2020 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING THE WIDESPREAD PANDEMIC SITUATION, EXCLUDED THE PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NOS 368 AND 369 OF 2020 MONSTER.COM INDIA P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 3. AT THE TIME HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL HA D ARISEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER A.YS INCLUDING T HE A.YS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, HE HAS REPEATED THE A DDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAD FOLLO WED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS TO DELETE THE ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AGAINST WHICH, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.68,82,88,074/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNMATURED INCOME WHEREIN THE ADVANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALREADY ACCRUED AND THE ADVANCE S RECEIVED ARE NOT REFUNDABLE RECEIPTS. 2. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE EARLIER A.YS, AND THE CIT (A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE BY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFEREN CE, THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH PARTI ES. IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED APPROPRIATE REVENUE RECOGNITION METHOD OF ACCOUNTIN G AND THUS THE INCOME DECLARED ON PROPORTIONAL RECEIPT BASIS CANNO T BE QUESTIONED. THIS ORDER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE 'S OWN CASE IN THE A.YS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 (ITA NO. 1762/HYD/2011 ONWA RDS DATED 31.03.2017), WHEREIN THE BENCH REITERATED THE STAND THAT WAS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. LD. D R HOWEVER SUBMITS ITA NOS 368 AND 369 OF 2020 MONSTER.COM INDIA P LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 THAT IN 2008-2009 A DIFFERENT VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF ZENITH ENERGY SERVICES PVT LTD., (SUPRA) BUT THE FACT REMA INS THAT FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS WIT H WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ABOVE SAID DECISION W AS RENDERED IN 2012 WHEREIN THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE ITAT 'B' BENCH HYDERABAD IN 2007 WAS NOT REFERRED TO AND THUS THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER, WHICH WAS RECENTLY F OLLOWED, SHOULD BE TAKEN AS PRECEDENT MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN A DECISIO N WAS RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, REVENUES APPEA LS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2021. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 DY.CIT, CIRCLE 16(2) 2 ND FLOOR, B BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 2 M/S.MONSTER .COM (I N DIA) (P) LTD., FLAT NO.1024/1 ROAD NO.45, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-4, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 4, HYDERABAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BEN CHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER