Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 are appeal by the revenue and cross objection of the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld.
& C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 2 . A.Y. 2013-14 CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad dated 19.12.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and following grounds have been taken: 1)"Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,25,08,392/- made on account of receipts from guests fees, room charges, hire charge and house participation. " 2) "Whether the Id. CIT(Appeal) is right in law on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,55,980/- on account of u/s. 57(iii) of the Act."
At the time of hearing, assessee company is a mutual association not engaged in any business activity and running a club for its members for providing sports, entertainment and extracurricular activities for member has not enhanced the quality life of its members.
3. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel mentioned that matter in question squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in preceding year for similar facts and circumstances and Co-ordinate Bench given relief to the assessee for similar grounds of appeal and relevant portion of the said & C.O. No. 51/Ahd/2016 is reproduced:
2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:-
"1. Whether the CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of guest fees, hire of rooms and hire charges in respect of club lawns aggregating to Rs. 1,46,86,476/-. 2. Whether the CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the Act of Rs.5,52,333/-."
At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by the series of ITA No. 562 & C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 3 . A.Y. 2013-14 decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case as is evident from the following judicial precedents:- i) & CO No.21/Ahd/2014; order dated 06.10.2016 ii) ITA Nos. 2239/Ahd/2011, ITA No. 1467/Ahd/2012, CO No. 195/Ahd/2011 & CO No.133/Ahd/2012; order dated 20.05.2016 iii) ITA No. 296/Ahd/2016 & CO No. 64/Ahd/2010; order dated 11.01.2013 iv) ITA No. 4075/Ahd/2008 and ITA No. 1346/Ahd/2010; order dated 10.12.2010 v) ITA Nos. 2793/Ahd/2006 and 1398/Ahd/2007; order dated 30.10.2009 vi) ITA Nos. 2121 & 2122/Ahd/1972-73 & CO Nos. 39, 40, 41 & 42/Ahd/1974-75; order dated 21.03.1975
4. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not point out any binding judicial precedent contrary to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel as referred above. In this view of the matter, and, respectfully following the decisions of co- ordinate bench in assessee's own case (supra), we decline to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, relief granted by the CIT(A) stands confirmed and approved.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
6. The Cross-Objection filed by the assessee was not pressed before us; therefore, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. In the result, the appeal and cross-objection - both are dismissed.
Since relief has been granted to the assessee by the series of judgment of ITAT, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) as he & C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017 4 . A.Y. 2013-14 has passed detailed and reasoned order relying on the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
C.O. No. 69/Ahd/2017
Ld. A.R. stated that he does not want to press the cross objection, therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, appeal and cross objection filed by both the parties are dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 10 - 10- 2019