PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

We find that the issues raised in all these appeals are similar, based same identical facts. Upon hearing both the parties, we proceed to hear these appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

At the outset the ld. AR, Shri C.H. Naniwadekar submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the validity of reopening assessment raised in ground No. 1 and prayed to dismiss as not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

Further, the issues raised in ground Nos. 2 to 6 are identical to the grounds raised and decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 23-07-2018 in ITA No. 179/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein this Tribunal remanded the issue raised in such grounds to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration referred to para 17 in the said order. He prayed to remand the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 6 to the file of Assessing Officer in terms of observations by this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11.

The ld. DR, Shri Abhishek Meshram reported no objections in remanding the matter to the file of Assessing Officer.

Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that as rightly pointed by the ld. AR, Shri C.H. Naniwadekar the issues raised in the present appeal are similar to the grounds raised in ITA No. 179/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case therein remanded the matter to the file of Assessing Officer in terms of observations detailed in para 17 of such order. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to decide the issue raised in ground No. 1 to 6 in terms of observations made by this Tribunal vide its order dated 23- 07-2018 in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2010-11. Thus, ground Nos. 2 to 6 allowed for statistical purpose.

It is brought to our notice that the assessee raised additional grounds in appeal in ITA No. 179/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 wherein the said additional ground has not been adjudicated by this Tribunal. For non-adjudication of said additional grounds, the assessee preferred Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal in MA No. 94/PUN/2018 and the order was recalled to that extent, this Tribunal remanded the additional grounds to the file of Assessing Officer since the main issues are also been remanded to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh consideration vide order dated 06-09-2019. The ld. DR did not controvert the same. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the additional grounds raised in this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

The facts being similar to assessment year 2009-10, the findings given by us while adjudicating the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2009-10 on the issues in hand, will apply mutatis mutandis to the assessment year under appeal. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

It is brought to our notice that the grounds raised in this appeal relating to principle of mutuality involving entrance fees and membership fees are identical to the additional grounds raised by assessee in appeal in ITA No. 179/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2010-11. In the aforementioned paras, we have decided to remand additional grounds raised by the assessee to the file of Assessing Officer since the main issues are also been remanded to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh consideration. The ld. DR did not controvert the same. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the grounds raised in this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh consideration. Thus, grounds raised by Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.