The Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 v. The Nutan Laxmi Co Operative Housing Society Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-21 versus ..Appellant The Nutan Laxmi Co Operative Housing Society Ltd...Respondent -------- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mrs. Aarti Vissanji, Sr. Adv with Mr. S.P. Mehta with Mr. Sudhir Mehta for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE P.C.: In this appeal by the revenue, the following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in holding that the amount of contribution received by the assessee from transfer and transferee members amounting to Rs.42,28,080/- falls in the concept of mutuality? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in admitting the additional grounds with regard to contribution in respect of transferee members amounting to Rs.21,14,040/- when the issue was not raised before the CIT(A) and attained the finality? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) holding that the amount of premium received by the Co. Op. Hsg society on account of utilization of TDR from its member is not taxable? 2 As regards questions (a) and (c) are concerned, the same stand covered by our order in revenue's appeal in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No. 1140 of 2010 delivered today. There is no reason to entertain questions (a) and (c) as formulated. 3So far as question (b) is concerned, we find that the additional ground raised before the Tribunal was allowed and it was pure legal issue. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal allowing the raising of the additional ground. This is particularly so as the matter on merits has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the questions formulated by the revenue. 4The appeal is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)