9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 448 - AT - Income TaxConcept of mutuality - Enhancement of income by the FAA - Held that - FAA for enhancing the income during appellate proceedings, the FAA should not travel outside the record, i.e., the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the AO, that the power of enhancement was restricted to the sources of income which have been the subject-matter of consideration by the AO from the point of view of taxability,that consideration did not mean incidental or collateral examination of any matter by the AO in the process of assessment,that there must be something in the assessment order to show that the AO had applied his mind to the particular subject-matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection. In the assessment order passed by the AO, there is nothing to show that he had applied his mind to the particular subject matter i.e. applicability of principle of mutuality. Therefore,the FAA was not justified in enhancing the income of the assessee by applying principles of mutuality for the year under appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. Exemption from payment of income tax on interest earned - Decided against assessee as per the decisions of Banglore Club case 2013 (1) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT Allowance of carry forward of short term and long term capital losses to the subsequent assessment years - Held that - We find that the assessee made a request to the FAA for admitting fresh evidence,that the FAA had admitted the same and had decided the issue in favour of the assessee without calling for a remand report from the AO.In our opinion,he should have called for a report from the AO in this regard. We are of the opinion that in the interest of justice,the matter should be restored back the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and verification of the documents produced by the assessee before the FAA - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Allowance of loss on sale of fixed assets - Held that - We find that the figure of loss claimed on sale of depreciable asset is different from the disallowance made by the AO.In our opinion it needs further verification.Therefore, in the interest of justice we are remitting back the matter to the file of the AO for verifying the exact figure of the loss claimed by the assessee and to allow the same if it has been disallowed by the assessee itself while computing the income for the year under appeal.- Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Short deduction of TDS - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - As stated earlier the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act and no details whatsoever was produced before the AO by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, that the FAA held that part of the TDS payment was shown in the earlier years. In our opinion it was the duty of the FAA to call for the remand report from AO before allowing the appeal.Therefore, in the interest of justice we are remitting back the matter to the file of AO to decide the issue again.The assessee is directed to produce relevant certificates before the AO.The AO would give credit for the taxes paid paid in the earlier years,as claimed by the assessee - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Treatment to be given to the entrance fee received by the assessee from Life Members - Held that - The issue has been settled by the Bombay High Court in its own case in assessment year 1963-64 and assessment year 1964-65 (1990 (4) TMI 51 - BOMBAY High Court) as held that the entrance fee paid by the life members equivalent to the amount collected from ordinary members is a capital receipts not liable to tax and the balance amount is in fact compounded payment, in lieu of annual subscriptions and therefore these are revenue receipts. Thus it will be seen that Bombay High Court has not laid down any ratio for the purpose of splitting entrance fee between revenue and capital receipt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was wrong in splitting the fee received from life members into capital and revenue receipts in 20 80 ratio. Assessing Officer was not justified in making an addition to the income of the Appellant on account of subscriptions transferred from the advance subscription account of ordinary members to the life members subscription account - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of income by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. Treating the Appellant as a 'mutual concern'. 3. Treatment of interest income earned by the Appellant. 4. Validity of re-assessment proceedings. 5. Various other issues related to capital loss, membership fees, and compliance with assessment proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Enhancement of Income: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) enhanced the Appellant's total income for the years under consideration, which was challenged on the grounds that such enhancement was beyond the powers prescribed under Section 251(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant argued that the enhancement was illegal, invalid, and in excess of jurisdiction, and sought recomputation of its total income ignoring the enhancement. The Tribunal held that the principles of mutuality were not applicable to the Appellant's activities and that the enhancement of income by the Commissioner was unjustified. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's order, allowing the Appellant to carry forward and set off losses as per the provisions of the Act. 2. Treating the Appellant as a 'Mutual Concern': The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the Appellant is a 'mutual concern' and that its income should be computed by applying the principles of mutuality. The Appellant contended that the principles of mutuality did not apply to its case and that it had been treated as a trading concern by the tax department for the past 60 years. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that the principles of mutuality were not applicable to the Appellant's activities, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income treating it as a 'trading concern'. 3. Treatment of Interest Income: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the interest income earned by the Appellant was not governed by the principles of mutuality and should be taxed separately. The Appellant argued that if it were to be treated as a 'mutual concern', the principles of mutuality should also apply to the interest income. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bangalore Club, dismissed the Appellant's claim and upheld the taxation of the interest income separately. 4. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the re-assessment proceedings were in accordance with law. The Appellant challenged this, arguing that the re-opening under Section 148 was in excess of jurisdiction and otherwise bad in law. The Tribunal, however, did not delve deeply into this issue as the Appellant did not press this ground of cross-objection during the hearing. 5. Other Issues: - Capital Loss: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had admitted additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification of documents related to the claim of capital loss. - Membership Fees: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of membership fees, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Appellant's own case for earlier years. - Compliance with Assessment Proceedings: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the figures related to the sale of depreciable assets and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to give credit for taxes paid in earlier years, as claimed by the Appellant. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Appellant were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2005-06 were partly allowed and for the remaining years were dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the Appellant were dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the principles of consistency and the proper application of the principles of mutuality in determining the taxability of the Appellant's income.
|
