2010 (10) TMI 287 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules advanced tuition fees and unexecuted package sales not income until services rendered.

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus. Dinesh Kumar Goel

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus. Dinesh Kumar Goel - [2011] 331 ITR 10 Issues Involved:1. Whether the tuition fees received in advance by the assessee should be treated as income for the year of receipt or the year in which services are rendered.2. Whether the sales of unexecuted packages in the beauty and slimming business should be treated as income for the year of receipt or the year in which services are rendered.Detailed Analysis:Tuition Fees Received in Advance:Facts:- The assessee, running a coaching institute, collected the total fee for a course at the time of admission.- For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee filed a return showing income from tuition fees but later revised it, claiming a deduction for fees related to the next financial year.Assessment Officer's (AO) View:- The AO denied the deduction, arguing that under the mercantile method of accounting, income becomes taxable when it falls due, not when it is received.- The AO concluded that the fees were due during the financial year 1996-97 based on the requirement that students pay the entire fee at registration.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) View:- The Commissioner allowed the deduction, stating that the fees received were advances and not income since services were yet to be rendered.- The Commissioner cited Supreme Court judgments to support the view that income accrues only when services are rendered.Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) View:- The ITAT upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting a Consumer Forum decision that mandated the refund of fees for unrendered services, reinforcing that the fees were advances.High Court's Analysis:- The court referred to Section 5 of the Income-tax Act, which includes income that accrues or arises during the year.- It emphasized that income should accrue when there is a right to receive it, which happens upon rendering services.- The court agreed with the ITAT and Commissioner that the fees were advances, not income, as services were yet to be rendered.- The court cited several judgments, including E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. and Calcutta Co. Ltd., to support its conclusion.Conclusion:- The High Court affirmed the ITAT's decision, holding that the fees received in advance were not income for the year of receipt but for the year in which services were rendered.Sales of Unexecuted Packages in Beauty and Slimming Business:Facts:- The assessees, operating under the brand name VLCC, provided beauty and slimming services and collected the entire fee in advance.- The assessee treated part of the sales as 'unexecuted packages' and did not show them as income for the year of receipt.High Court's Analysis:- The court noted that the principle applied in the case of M/s. Fiitjee regarding advance fees also applied here.- It referred to Section 145 of the Income-tax Act and Section 211 of the Companies Act, which mandate adherence to accounting standards.- The court highlighted Accounting Standard (AS) 9, which states that revenue from services is recognized as they are performed.- The court emphasized the matching concept, where revenue should match the expenses incurred to earn it.- It cited the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd., which supported the matching concept.Conclusion:- The High Court concluded that the sales of unexecuted packages were not income for the year of receipt but for the year in which services were rendered.- The court dismissed the appeals, noting that the Revenue does not lose anything as the tax rate remains the same in subsequent years.Final Judgment:- The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the court criticized the Revenue for raising issues that do not affect the overall tax liability. The Revenue was directed to pay costs to the library fund of the Delhi High Court Bar Association.