2019 (4) TMI 2042 - AT - Income Tax

Benefit of doctrine of mutuality - Addition on account of guest fees, hire of rooms and hire charges in respect of club lawns - Disallowance u/s 57(iii) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by the series of decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case. 2013 (1) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD , 2010 (12) TMI 1334 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - 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 - Accordingly, relief granted by the CIT(A) stands confirmed and approved. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to CIT(A)'s order on assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13.
1. Deletion of addition on account of guest fees, hire of rooms, and hire charges.
2. Deletion of disallowance under section 57(iii) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the assessment under section 143(3) for the year 2012-13. The appellant raised two grievances concerning the deletion of additions totaling to ?1,46,86,476 on account of guest fees, hire of rooms, and hire charges, and the deletion of a disallowance of ?5,52,333 under section 57(iii) of the Act.

2. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel argued that the issues raised were in favor of the assessee based on previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. The counsel referred to several judicial precedents from the Tribunal's co-ordinate bench, demonstrating that the issues were settled in favor of the assessee in those cases.

3. The Departmental Representative supported the Assessing Officer's order but failed to present any binding judicial precedent contradicting the decisions relied upon by the assessee's counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere in the matter, upholding the relief granted by the CIT(A) based on the decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case.

4. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the relief granted by the CIT(A) was confirmed and approved. The Cross-Objection filed by the assessee was not pursued and was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, both the appeal and cross-objection were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.

5. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 1st April 2019 by Pramod Kumar, Vice President, and Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM.