TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7003/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0295 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH K K ANTH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10) TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD., 9 TH HINCON HOUSE, TOWER B - 247, PARK L.B.S, MARG, VIKHORLI (W) MUMBAI 400083 PAN AAACT4953G . APPELLANT V/S ACIT,5(3) 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400020 . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. PORUS KAKA & MANISH K K ANTH REVENUE BY : M.S. POOJA SWAROOP DATE OF HEARING 15.05.2017 DATE OF ORDER - 14 .06 .2017 O R D E R PER: MANJUNATHA G. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 9, MUMBAI DATED 07.09.2012 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ACIT IN ADDING RS.5,45,42,602/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ITR ON THE ONLY GROUND, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE AIR AMOUNT OF RS.5,45,42,602/ - . WHILE THE RECONCILIATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE OVERALL INCOME RECOGNIZED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS HIGHER THAN THE REVENUE AS PER AIR BY RS.5,02,36,014/ - , THE ACIT HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE NEGATIVE VARIANCE OF RS.5,45,42,602/ - AS PER THE RECONCILIATION AND IGNORED THE POSITIVE VARIANCES OF RS.10,96,96,458/ - WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN NEGATIVE VARIANCES. HE S HOULD HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE POSITIVE VARIANCES OF RECONCILIATION WHERE THEY EXCEEDED THE AMOUNTS AS PER AIR FOR THE SAME REASONS. 2. THE APPELLANT FOLLOWED THE ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPANY AND PRESCRIBED ACCOUNTING STA NDARD ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFLECTING ITS INCOME CORRECTLY WHEREAS THE NEGATIVE VARIANCES AS PER RECONCILIATION AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO TDS AND ADVANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE CLIEN T AND THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF AIR STATEMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. 3. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME IS TO BE BASED ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AS PER SEC.145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTIFIED BY THE TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 3 GOVERN MENT TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. 4. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ERRORS FOUND BY THE A.O. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT, THE A.O. CANNOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AIR, EVEN IF THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE AIR STATEMENT. 5. THE A.O. IGNORED THE VOLUMINOUS STATEMENTS ANALYZING AND RECONCILING THE REVENUE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AIR STATEMENT, WHILE SUBMITTING THE REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT(A) IN SPITE OF HAVING SUFFIC IENT TIME FROM 13.07.2012 TO 08.10.2012 TO VERIFY THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS OF 118 PARTIES AND ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE 118 BALANCES COULD BE RECONCILED BY AIR. 6. THE A.O. IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE INCOME (INCLUDING SERVICE TAX) IN THE APPELLANT'S PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS MORE THAN AIR FIGURES (WHICH INCLUDES SERVICE TAX) ON A GROSS BASIS AND WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FORWARDED TO HIM BY THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE DISCREPANCIES WITH REFERENCE TO AIR. THE A.O. DID NOT VERIFY AND CHECK THE STATEMENT. 7. THE CI T(A) IGNORED THE RECONCILIATIONS OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.63,35,32,634/ - AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE RECEIPTS AS PER AIR INFORMATION OF RS.66,35,68,278/ - . HE ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT TDS TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 4 CREDITS AS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT WAS LESS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,49,202/ - IN COMPARISON TO THE TDS AMOUNT REFLECTING IN THE AIR INFORMATION. IT IS ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TDS CREDIT ON CERTAIN OPERATIONAL RECEIPT WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE SAME IN THE APPELLANT'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT INCLUDING THE SAME IN THE APPELLANT'S PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MEDIA AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT AND ADVE RTISEMENT MONITORING SERVICES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 25.09.2008 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS19,95,51,498/ - . T HE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY UNDE R CASS AND ACCORDING LY, NOTICES U/S. 1 43(2) ALONG WITH 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICES , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED DETAILS CALLED FOR. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE A.O NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS RECEIPTS ADMITTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER AIR INFORMATION OF AST DATA BASE , THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE , THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 5 1 9.12.201 1 SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUN TING FOR REVENUE , AS PER WHICH THE REVENUE IS RECOGNIZED ON THE SERVICES RENDERED TO THE CLIENTS, WHEREAS SOME OF OUR CLIENTS PAY US IN ADVANCE AS PER AGREED PAYMENT TERMS OF OUR CONTRACT WITH CLIENTS. A S PER OUR STANDARD A CCOUNTING PRACTICE, WE RAISE INVO ICE IN ADVANCE IN VARIOUS FREQUENCIES I.E. MONTHLY, QUARTERLY, HALF YEARLY OR YEAR LY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SERVICES , WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS RECOGNIZE D ON MONTHLY BASIS, I.E. ON THE BASIS OF SERVICES BEING PROVIDED TO OUR CLIENTS ON MONTHLY BASIS. SINCE , THE I NVOICES ARE RAISED IN ADVANCE, THERE WILL BE ALWAYS VARIANCE IN RECOGNISED REVENUE HOWEVER, THE TOTAL BILLED AMOUNT IS RECOGNIZED IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR OR PREVIOUS OR SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS MORE THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS APPEARED IN AIR DATE BASE , THEREFORE THE NEGATIVE VARIANCE APPEARED IN FEW CLIENTS MAY BE IGNORED. T O THIS EFFECT FURNISHED NECESSARY RECONCILIATION STATEMEN T EXPLAINING REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REVENUES AS PER AIR DATA BASE. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS FOR VARIANCE IN R EVENUE IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS ON WHICH CLIENT H AS DE DUCTED TDS, WHEREAS WE HAVE CONSIDERED REVENUE IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER INVOICE S RAISED ON THE SERV ICES RENDERED TO THE PARITIES. I T IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ISSUE D TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 6 CREDIT NOTES TO THE PARTIES FOR VARIOUS REASONS WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN T HE AIR INFORMATION , THEREFORE IT IS INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT REVENUE AS PER AIR INFORMATION IS UNRECOGNIZED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T HE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE , OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE AIR AMOUNT OF RS.5,45,42,602/ - , THEREFORE TREATED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.5,45,42,602/ - AS UNE XPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . T HE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTAIN EVIDENCES CLAIMED THE SAME A R E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, AUTHORITIES MADE ADDITIONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION WITHOUT POINTING OU T ANY DE FECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSEE F URTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS MAINTAINED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE ICAI AND ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND ALSO AUDITOR HAS NOT COMMENTED A NYTHING ABOUT INCO RRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOK OF ACCOUNTS IS MORE THAN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER AIR DATE BASE , THEREFORE CONSIDERING ONLY NEGATIVE VARIANCE IN THE AIR INFORMATION IGNORING P OSITIVE VARIANCE IN THE AIR INFORMATION IS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE BASED ON TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 7 AIR INFORMATION ALONE . THE A . O HAS TO ALLEGE THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCIES IN BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS , THE CIT(A) HAS FORWARD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE A . O IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 21.08.2012 REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RECEIPTS AS PER AIR DATA BASE. THE CIT(A) , CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE A . O AND ALSO REJOINDER FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT , OBSE RVED THAT PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSEE WAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS TURNOVER AS REPORTED IN AIR INFORMATION. THE CIT(A) , FURTHER , OBSERVED THAT AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 199 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM CREDIT FOR TDS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH RELATED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN THIS CA SE , THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS ON CERTAIN RECEIPTS, WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY TDS U/S. 199 WAS CLAIMED WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS , ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A . O I S CONFIRMED. HOWEVER , IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE , DIRECTED THE A.O TO VERIFY THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GIVING TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 8 APPEAL EFFECT . AGGRIEVE D BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7 . THE LD. A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN UP HOLDING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A .O , TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND RECEIPTS AS PER AIR INFORMATION , ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. T HE A . R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE AND ALSO EXPLAINED REASONS FOR VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , AND AS PER AIR DATA BASE. THE A . O IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CHOSEN TO CONSIDER NEGATIVE VARIANCE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN POSITIVE VARIANCE. T HE A . R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE E RRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFOR MATION WITHOUT REFERRING ANY INCONSISTENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WH ICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS IS MADE TO THE NEGATIVE VARIANCE IN CERTAIN PARTIES , IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPT S AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS APPEARED IN THE AIR DATA BASE. T HE A . R FURTHER REFERRING TO THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCI LE 100% VARIANCE IN EACH PARTY A S THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERED SERVICES TO MORE THAN 800 PAR TIES, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE. THE A . O IGNORING ALL TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 9 EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , MADE ADDITIONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION WHICH IS INCORRECT . IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS , RELIED UPON ITAT MUMBAI BENCH , IN THE CASE OF S. GANESH VS ACIT IN ITA 5 2 7/MUM/2010 AND ALSO ANS LAW ASSOCIATES VS ACIT ITA NO. 5181/MUM/2012. F URTHER THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF S. GANESH IN ITA 1390/2011. 8 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . THE D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE APPEARED IN THE AIR DATA BASE WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES . THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS BETWEEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AIR INFORMATION , THEREFORE THE A . O WAS RIGHT IN M AKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PART IES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WHICH LEAD S TO THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION ARE THAT THERE IS VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU N TS AND GROSS RECEIPTS APPEARED IN THE AIR DATA BASE , AS PER THE TDS DETAILS F ILED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEDUCTORS . THE A . O MADE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 10 VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AIR DATA BASE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A DDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE SOLELY BASED ON THE AIR DATE BASE , WITHOUT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T HE ASSES SEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND AUDIT REPORT DOESNT CONTAINS ANY OBSERVATION ON INCORRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE, AO WAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS ONLY TO NEGATIVE VARIANCE APPEARED IN THE AIR DATA BASE, IGNO RING POSITIVE VARIANCE IN THE AIR INFORMATION , WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE NEGATIVE VARIAN CE. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS EX PLAINED THE REASONS FOR VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND AS PER AIR DATA BASES. ACCORDING , TO THE ASSESSEE , THE REASONS FOR VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPT IS DUE TO ITS STANDARD ACCOUNTING PRACTICE , AS PER WHIC H IT IS RECOGNIZE D REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF INVOICE RAISED TO THE CUSTOMERS, WHEREAS THE CUSTOMERS HAS DEDUCT ED TDS ON TOTAL PAYMENT S INCLUDING AD VANCE PAYMENTS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT DUE TO ITS ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, REVENUE IS RECOGNISED EITHER IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR , HOWEVER THERE IS NO CHANCE TO EXCLUDE ANY REVENUE BILL ED TO THE CUSTOMERS. TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 11 10 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATERIAL ON THE RECORD , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER ITS BOOKS ACCOUNTS AND GROSS RECEIPTS APPEAR ED IN AIR DATA BAS E. IT IS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT NEED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH NECESSARY E VIDENCES. THOUGH , ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE, ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FAILED BY THE ASSESSEE , WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN POSITIVE AS WELL AS NEGATIVE ADJUSTM ENT TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO RECON CILE THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER AIR DATA BASE. ASSESSEE CLAIM S TO HAVE CONSIDER ED CERTAIN RECEIPTS IN THE PROCEED ING FINANCIAL YEAR AND ALSO CONSIDER ED CERTAIN RECEIPTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR , ACCORDINGLY TO THE STANDARD ACCOUNTING POLI CIES FOLLOW ED IN ITS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE ENTIRE MISMATCH IN RECEIPT S IS IN VIEW OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH H AS BEEN RIGHTLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL OTHER PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS . THEREFORE, UNDER SUCH FACT UAL SCENARIO, THE INC OMES SOUGHT TO BE ADDED SEEMS TO BE TAXED IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAS AND , HENCE A N Y ADDITIONS TO INCOME ALREADY TAX ED IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO TAX THE SAME INCOME. SINCE , BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER EXPLANATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 12 TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE I S DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS OF RECONCILIATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A . O AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR VARIANCE IN GROSS RECE IPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER AIR DATA BASE. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 .06 .2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( D.T. GARASIA ) (G. MANJUNATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 14 .06 .2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER NISHANT VERMA SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI TAM MEDIA RESEARCH P. LTD ITA NO.7003/MUM./2012 13