Punjab & Haryana H.C : The hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the principle of mutuality applies in this case

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

CIT vs. Ludhiana Aggarwal Co-op. Housing Building Society Ltd.

Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section : 252

Adarsh Kumar Goel And Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ.

I.T.A. No. 450 Of 2010

November 22, 2010

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated July 30, 2009 in I. T. A. No. 577/Chandi/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise the following substantial question of law :

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the principle of mutuality applies in this case?”

2. The assessee is running a school apart from other activities. The assessee filed its return declaring loss but the Assessing Officer made addition and assessed the income accordingly. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed that 50 per cent, of the income should be treated to be exempt on the principle of mutuality. On appeal of the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the direction to treat 50 per cent, income to be exempt on the principle of mutuality on the ground that percentage had to be worked out on facts. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment after considering the plea of mutuality raised by the assessee. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the case of the assessee itself for the earlier assessment year.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show the status of the earlier order of the Tribunal. However, he states that fresh assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the earlier order of the Tribunal. Thus, the said order having attained finality, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, following the earlier order.

5. In view of the above, the question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[Citation : 336 ITR 47]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *