Assessee correctly followed receipt basis accounting for royalty income, no revenue manipulation found

ITAT Delhi held that assessee correctly followed receipt basis accounting for royalty income from DGH, with Rs. 4657 lacs shown as outstanding on March 31, 2008 and realized in next assessment year. Change in accounting policy mandated by CAG report was for fund management strengthening, not revenue manipulation. No revenue loss occurred as income was properly reported in AY 2009-10. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based solely on accounting policy change. Regarding royalty payable to state government, CIT(A) correctly allowed deduction as crystallized liability per DGH letters, not contingent liability. Assessee's appeal allowed, revenue's appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of royalty payment as prior period expenses.
2. Addition of income not accounted for by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Royalty Payment as Prior Period Expenses
The appellant, a statutory body providing financial assistance to the Oil Industry, claimed royalty payment on accrual basis from A.Y. 2008-09 based on C & AG directions. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 30,62,00,000 as prior period expenses. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, stating that the royalty expenses were crystallized during the relevant year. The appellant argued that the prior period expenses were allowable, citing various cases and the consistency in accounting methods. The Revenue contended that the liability was not crystallized during the relevant year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the expenses were not contingent liabilities and were duly provided for in the relevant year, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of Unaccounted Income
The appellant's appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 13,28,38,502 on account of income not accounted for by the assessee in the current year. The appellant followed a consistent system of accounting, and the income was accounted for in the subsequent year. The appellant argued against double taxation and presented evidence supporting their accounting practices. The Revenue contended that the change in accounting system without proper cause justified the addition. However, the Tribunal found that the change in accounting policy was in line with CAG's report and was necessary for fund management. The Tribunal noted that the income was reported in the next assessment year without any denial from the Revenue, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the unaccounted income and dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the disallowance of royalty payment as prior period expenses.

---