Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order, directs deletion of advance subscription fees as income

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and directing the AO to delete the addition made for subscription fees received in advance as income for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that only accrued income for the year should be treated as income, rejecting the treatment of the entire amount as income for the year. The judgment was pronounced on October 17, 2018, in Chennai.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of subscription fees received in advance as income for the relevant assessment year.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Assessment
The case involved a private limited company engaged in online services, which filed its return for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessment was completed, but later, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a change in the accounting policy of the company. Consequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. The appellant contested the validity of the reopening, arguing that the income did not accrue during the relevant assessment year. However, both the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reopening. The Appellate Tribunal, after detailed consideration, did not address this issue as the appeal was decided on merits.

Issue 2: Treatment of Subscription Fees
The main contention was regarding the treatment of subscription fees received in advance as income for the relevant assessment year. The appellant followed the Mercantile System of Accounting and recognized the advance fees as income in the succeeding assessment year. The AO, however, treated the entire amount as income for the relevant year, citing the absence of deferred income recognition under the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, considering a portion of expenses incurred in the relevant year. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this approach, emphasizing that under the Act, there is no provision for deferred expenditure. It noted that only accrued income for the relevant year should be treated as income. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made for the subscription fees received in advance, as it pertained to the succeeding assessment year. The Tribunal also highlighted that the facts of this case were distinct from the cases relied upon by the Revenue Authorities.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, directing the AO to delete the addition made for the subscription fees received in advance. The judgment was pronounced on October 17, 2018, in Chennai.

---