The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.450 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. The Ludhiana Aggarwal Co-op. Housing Building Society Ltd.-----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Denesh Goyal, Standing Counselfor the appellant. ---for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh dated 30.7.2009 in I.T.A. No.577/CHANDI/2009 forthe assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding thatprinciple of mutuality apply in this case?” 3.The assessee is running a school apart from otheractivities. The assessee filed its return declaring loss but theactivities. The assessee filed its return declaring loss but the Assessing Officer made addition and assessed the incomeaccordingly. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed that 50% of theincome should be treated to be exempt on the principle ofmutuality. On appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal set aside thedirection to treat 50% income to be exempt on the principle ofmutuality on the ground that percentage had to be worked out onfacts. Tthe matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to passa fresh order of assessment after considering the plea ofmutuality raised by the assessee. The Tribunal followed itsearlier order in the case of the assessee itself for the earlierassessment year. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to showthe status of the earlier order of the Tribunal. However, he statesthat fresh assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer inpursuance of earlier order of the Tribunal. Thus, the said orderhaving attained finality, there is no reason to interfere with theimpugned order passed by the Tribunal, following the earlierorder. 6. In view of above, the question raised cannot be heldto be substantial question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 22, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE