TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the basis of doctrine of mutuality. Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 200-07 has been set aside by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court [ 1987 (10) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . - no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA/CO No(s) 2239/Ahd/2011, 1467/Ahd/2012, CO No. 195/Ahd/11 (in ITA No. 2239/Ahd/11), CO No. 133/Ahd/12 (in ITA No. 1467/Ahd/12) - - - Dated:- 20-5-2016 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Albinus Tirkey, Sr. DR. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following common grounds:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 85,05,005/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of income received by the assessee from outsiders/not regular members/temporary members in respect of Guest fees, Income from hire of room, hire charges in respect of Club Lawn. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)XIV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3.2. Assessee has raised the following common grounds (except amount) in its Cross Objections: 1. The learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b property 10,98,914 3. Income from Rooms 68,56,439 Total 85,05,005 4.2. The assessee was asked to show-cause notice as to why the above referred sums not be taxed as income of the assessee. The submission of the assessee about it being non-taxable on account of the concept of mutuality was not found acceptable to the AO. He also noticed that in AY 2007-08, AO while framing the assessment had considered similar receipts, namely, receipts from guest fees, room fees and hire charges as taxable income of the assessee. AO, therefore, for the impugned year also considered the aggregate sum of ₹ 85, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the AO and further relied on the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat Club of Gujarat Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (1988) 171 ITR 504 (Gujarat). On the other hand, ld.AR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in earlier years. The Coordinate Bench (ITAT B Bench Ahmedabad) of Tribunal while deciding the appeal (Revenue s appeal) for AY 2006-07 in ITA No.296/Ahd/2010 (with CO No.64/Ahd/2010) dated 11/01/2013 and by following the Tribunal s order in assessee s own case for AYs 2003-04 2004-05 (ITA Nos.2793/Ahd/2006 and 1398/Ahd/2007) had dismissed the Revenue s appeal and thus decided the issue in favour of assessee. He therefore subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is against the disallowance of ₹ 52,95,900/-made by the A.O. on account of guest fees, room charges and hire charges in respect of club lawn collection from non-members, by holding that the income earned from the persons who were not regular members of the club was not offered though it was out of purview of mutuality. Ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition by observing as under:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the A.R. along with the case laws as relied upon, I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant supported by various decisions in favour of appellant in earlier years by various appellant authorities on the same issue. Even by submission dated 13-11-09, appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the ratio of the judgement is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 6.2. Thus, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2008-09 is dismissed. 7. Now, we take up Revenue s appeal for AY 2009-10. 7.1. In this case, since both the parties have admitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to that of ITA No.2239/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-09 in Revenue s appeal(supra), which we have decided hereinabove in favour of assessee, we therefore for the similar reasons stated hereinabove while deciding the Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.2239/Ahd/2011 for AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
