DCIT Vs. Shri Arvinder Singh
Soin (ITAT Delhi) , ITA No. 738/Del/2013 Date of Decision: 20.09.2013
The appellant is a doctor,
surgeon specializing in liver transplant. It is a fact that the appellant is
following mercantile system of accounting on a regular basis. The
appellant has received life time consultancy fees which is accounted as advance
from patients as per the principles of mercantile system of accounting.This is
nothing but advance from patients to be utilized in due course as per the
scheme.
On verification of the
evidence given during appeal proceedings which was given to Assessing Officer also
for his comments, it is found that the appellant has not utilized the amount
during the year. This was booked only at the time of actual consultations
with the doctor in due course. The appellant has given ample proof in
order to prove his contentions. Copy of balance sheet, P & L account
and Form 3CD for financial years 2009-10 & 2010-11 also are
evidence that the appellant has accounted the said evidences in the subsequent
years on realization of the same. The appellant has received the amount as advance
in contemplation of the services to be offered in future. Unless
the services are offered the said advances cannot change the
nature from ‘advance’ to that of the ‘receipt’. Once the services have been offered,
the appellant has brought the amounts to his income at that time. The scheme of
life time consultancy has been perused in detail. The name is only
life time, whereas services are meant for a period of 48 months post
surgery with a period of 12 months immediately after the surgery as free of
charge, meaning there by the amount of advance would have to be exhausted with
in a period of three years from surgery or else would have to be returned in
case of non utilization of the same or in case of death of the patient. The
appellant has done exactly the same. The appellant has accounted the said
advances as and when realized. The same are accounted in the years of
realization. Sufficient proof in the name of balance sheet and
P & L account and Form 3CD to support the case ofthe appellant
has been filed, which is enough proof to accept that what has been received as
advance under the life time consultancy fee is only to be taxed as income when services to
that effect are offered. Till then the amount remains a liability in the books
of the appellant. Considering the details filed it is found that the advance
need not be booked at the time of receipt nor it is a registration charge. The
appellant has strictly followed the principles of mercantile system of accounting.
Accordingly, I hold that the appellant has correctly followed the principles of
mercantile system of accounting and the amount of advance received during the
year cannot be booked as income. The disallowance to that effect is directed to
be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment