M/S. Vidyasagar Learning Pvt. Ltd v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2007 M/s. Vidyasagar Learning Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant versus The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax ... Respondent Mr. K. Gopal for the appellant.Mr. A.D. Kango for the respondent. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.DATE:OCTOBER 08, 2007. P.C. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order passed by the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 13[th] July, 2006. It is not disputedbefore us that the appellant is carrying on various coaching classesand helps the students who are desirous of attending entranceexaminations from time to time. During the period 25[th] March, 1999 to31[st] March, 1999, the appellant-assessee had received amounts fromthe students in respect of courses other than MHCET. In that course the coaching classes were to start from the month of April, 1999onwards. The amounts already received as advance fee by theassessee amounting to Rs. 27,07,250/- was treated as an income forthat year. The Income-tax authorities treated the amounts receivedprior thereto as an income and did not carry forward the said amountsas advance fee receipt to be adjusted or utilised in the subsequent yearcommencing from 1[st] April, 1999. The grievance of the appellant is thatthis was an advance fee received for giving coaching classes for atechnical course which was to commence in the subsequent year. Inthese circumstances, it is contended that the following question of lawarises for consideration of this Court. “Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in law inconcluding that advance towards the fees amounting toRs. 27,07,250/- has to be treated as income for theAssessment Year 1999-2000?” 2.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,we are of the considered view that the above proposed question oflaw hardly satisfies the ingredients of a question of law ascontemplated under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. It is notdisputed before us that the appellant-assessee is conducting various coaching classes and uses the same infrastructure faculty and otherexpenses which are common to all the coaching classes. Viewedfrom any angle, we do not think that the Tribunal has fallen an error oflaw to treat the amounts received on account of advance fee as part ofthe income for that year. In our opinion, no question of law, much lesssubstantial question of law, arises in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.