Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2310 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-10-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB-B
Next Hearing Date
22-09-2021
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
11-12-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (T HROUGH V IDEO CONFERENCE ) SL.NO. ITA NO. & ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 1388/ HYD/2015 2005 - 06 M/S. SECUNDERABAD CLUB, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AAAAT2543E INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD. 2. 1389/HYD/2015 2006 - 07 - DO - - DO - 3. 1390/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 - DO - - DO - 4. 1392/HYD/2015 1996 - 97 - DO - - DO - 5. 1393/HYD/2015 1998 - 99 - DO - - DO - 6. 1394/HYD/2015 1999 - 2000 - DO - - DO - 7. 1395/HYD/2015 2000 - 01 - DO - - DO - 8. 1396/HYD/2015 2001 - 02 - DO - - DO - 9. 1397/HYD/2015 2002 - 03 - DO - - DO - 10. 1398/HYD/2015 2003 - 04 - DO - - DO - 11. 1399/HYD/2015 2009 - 10 - DO - - DO - 12. 1400/HYD/2015 2010 - 11 - DO - - DO - 13. 940/HYD/2015 2011 - 12 - DO - - DO - 14. 941/HYD/2015 2012 - 13 - DO - - DO - 15. 1103/HYD/2018 2014 - 15 - DO - - DO - 16. 1696/HYD/2018 2015 - 16 - DO - - DO - APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. FIROZE (A.R.) RESPONDENT BY : S MT.KANIK A AGARWAL (D.R.) 2 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 DATE OF HEARING : 29.09. 2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 . 10 .2021. O R D E R PER BENCH : THE INSTANT BATCH OF SIXTEEN APPEALS PERTAINS TO A SINGLE ASSESSEE THEREIN M/S. SECUNDERABAD CLUB COMPRISING OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT DETAILS : SL. NO. ITA NO. & ASST. YEAR CIT(A) ORDER, DATE & CASE NO. PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 - 3 1388 TO 1390 /HYD/2015 2005 - 06 , 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 CIT(A) - VI, HYDERABAD; 27.02.2013; NO.0323, 0324 & 0325/2011 - 12/CIT(A) - VI 143(3) RWS 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. 1392/HYD/2015 1996 - 97 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0693A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 5. 1393/HYD/2015 1998 - 99 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0694A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 6. 1394/HYD/2015 1999 - 2000 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0695A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 7. 1395/HYD/2015 2000 - 01 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0698A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 8. 1396/HYD/2015 2001 - 02 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0696A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 9. 1397/HYD/2015 2002 - 03 CIT(A) - VI, HYDERABAD; 27.02.2013; NO.0697/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - VI 143(3) RWS 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. 1398/HYD/2015 2003 - 04 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0692A/2011 - 12 / CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 11. 1399/HYD/2015 2009 - 10 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0595/2014 - 15/ CIT(A) - 6/15 - 16 - DO - 12. 1400/HYD/2015 2010 - 11 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 30.09.2015; NO.0175A/2012 - 13 / CIT(A) - VI/15 - 16 143(3) RWS 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 13. 940/HYD/2015 2011 - 12 CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD; 27.02.2015; 0533/2014 - 15/ITO, WD.10(2)/CIT(A) - 4 / HYD/2014 - 15 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 14. 941/HYD/2015 2012 - 13 CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD; 27.02.2015; 0532/2014 - 15/ITO, WD.10(2)/CIT(A) - 4 / HYD/2014 - 15 - DO - 15. 1103/HYD/2018 2014 - 15 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 16.02.2018; 0416/2016 - 17/A3/ CIT(A) - 6 - DO - 16. 1696/HYD/2018 2015 - 16 CIT(A) - 6, HYDERABAD; 04.05.2018; 10251/2017 - 18/ B2/ CIT(A) - 6 - DO - HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES ARE AD - IDEM D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT ALL THE SE INSTANT SIXTEEN APPEALS R AISE ALMOST AN IDENTICAL ISSUE ON LAW AND ON FACTS. THEY NEXT SUBMITTED TH A T THE ASSESSEES APPEAL 1388/HYD/2015 MAY BE TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. WE ACCEPT THE FOREGOING UNANIMOUS REQUEST TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL 1388/HYD/2015 AS THE LEAD CASE CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOSS ARISING ON RUNNING THE ACTIVITY IS A MERE DEFICIT AND NOT LOSS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INCOME LIABLE TO TAX. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFICIT ARISING OUT OF OPERATIONS OF A 4 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 SOCIAL CLUB DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LOSS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE I T ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUCH DEFICIT OR LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION AGAINST PROFITS ARISING FROM VARIOUS OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUCH CLAIM CANNOT BE MADE IN AN ASSESS MENT MADE U/S.147 OF THE I. T. ACT. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NEXT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS FOR ITS FIFTH SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. REJECTED ACCORDINGL Y. 4. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE REMAINING SOLE ISSUE OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF SET OFF OF DEFICIT IN MUTUALITY ACCOUNT OF RS.18,58,643 CLAIMED AS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AS A LOSS AGAINST ITS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES OF RS.41,15,158 WHICH STANDS REJECTED IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER VIDE FOLLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSION : 5 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 --- SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY ---- 6 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 7 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 8 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 9 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 5. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ARGUED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING THE IMPUGNED SET OFF OF THE LOSS IN THE NATURE OF DEFICIT IN MUTUALITY ACCOUNT AGAINST INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. HE TOOK US TO THE TRIBUNALS FIRST ROUND REMAND DIRECTION S DT.20.02.2014 (SUPRA) THAT THE LEARNED CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S STAND THAT SECTION 71 OF THE ACT DULY APPLIED IN THE RELEVANT SET OF F CLAI M. AND THAT THE CIT(A)S IMPUGNED CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAS NOT EVEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SECTION 71 OF THE ACT IN LIGHT OF FACTS ON RECORDS BEFORE DENYING THE IMPUGNED SET OFF ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSS PERTAINING TO MUTUALITY DEFICIT. 10 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 THE ASSESSEE QUOTED (2 012) 19 TAXMANN.COM 141 (BOM) CIT VS. GALAXY SURFACTANTS LTD. THAT SUCH A LOSS OF 100% EOU ENTITLED FOR SECTION 10B DEDUCTION IS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST PROFIT OF OTHER UNITS UNDER THE SAME HEAD. LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT CITED CIT(EXEMPTION) VS. DAWAT E. HADIYAH ITA NO.741 & 755/2016 DT.3.12.2018; CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM) AFFIRMED IN (2018) 89 TAXMAN.COM 127 (SC); CIT VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE TRUST THAT AN INCOME DERIVED FROM TRUST S ACTIVITIES HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER NORMAL COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES ONLY. MEANING THEREBY THAT SET OFF OF EXPENSES AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR S IS DULY ALLOWABLE. LEARNED COUNSEL LASTLY REFERRED TO DIT (EXEMPTIO N) VS. M/S. NAJAM BAUG TRUST ITA NO.69/2013 DT.14.01.2015 REITERAT ING THE VERY PROPOSITION. MR. FIROSE ACCORDINGLY CLOSED HIS ARGUMENT S THAT THE CLINCHING ISSUE HEREIN AS TO WHETHER SECTION 71 IS APPLICABLE REGARDING SET OFF ASSESSEE'S LOSS / DEFICIT IN MUTUALITY AGAINST ITS INTEREST 11 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES STANDS S ETTLED TO REST BY THE LEARNED CO - ORDINATE BENCH REMAND DIRECTION S (SUPRA). 6. THE REVENUE HAS DRAWN STRONG SUPPORT FROM CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DECLINING THE IMPUGNED SET OFF ARISING FROM MUTUALITY ACCOUNT DEFICIT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE'S INTEREST INCOME OF RS .41,15,158 TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER . 7. MR. A. FIROZE HAS REITERATED HIS FOREGOING ARGUMENT S DURING REBUTTAL. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FOREGOING RIVAL CONTENTION S AND FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEE'S STAND SEEKING TO SET OFF ITS IMPUGNED DEFICIT OF RS.18,58,643 ; ARISING FROM MUTUALITY ACCOUNT , AGAINST INTEREST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE ASSESSEE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR MUTUALITY BENEFIT REGARDING THE DEFICIT ACCOUNT HEREIN RESULTING IN NEGATIVE FIGURE OF RS.18,5 8,643 CLAIMED AS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF U/S.71 OF THE ACT. H ONBLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION IN BANGALORE CLUB CASE ( 2 013) 350 ITR 12 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 509 (SC) HAS SETTLED THE LAW THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY THE THREE ESSENTIAL ING REDIENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING MUTUALITY BENEFIT I.E. A COMPLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN CONTRIBUTOR S AND PARTICIPATOR S , THEIR ACTIONS TO BE VERY MUCH IN FURTHERANCE TO MANDATE OF THE CLUB AND THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY KIND OF PROFITEERING FROM THE FU ND CREATED BY THEM WHICH COULD ONLY BE EXPENDED OR RETURNED TO THEMSELVES. THEIR LORDSHIPS DULY T OOK INTO CONSIDERATION (1889) STYLE (SURVEYOR OF TAXES) VS. NEW YORK L IFE I NSURANCE C OMPANY THAT ONE CANNOT MAKE ANY PROFIT FROM HIMSELF IN LIGHT OF THE THREE FOREGOING CONDITIONS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER MADE CLEAR THEREIN THAT IT IS ONLY SECTION 2(24)(VII) OF THE ACT WHEREIN A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF A MUTUAL ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE DERIVING TAXABLE INCOME. 9 . COMING TO THE ASSESSEE'S IMPUGNED DEFICIT OF RS.18,58,643 ARISING FROM ITS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACC OUNT THAT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS SET OFF AGAINST ITS INTEREST INCOME ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THERE COULD HARDLY BE ANY ISSUE T HAT ALTHOUGH HON'BLE APEX 13 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 COURTS LANDMARK DECI S ION IN CIT VS. J.S. GOTLA (1985) 156 ITR 223 (SC) HOLDS THAT IT CAN BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT MUCH DOUBT THAT INCOME WOULD INCLUDE LOSS AND VICE VERSA, THE FACT REMAIN S THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME , IF ANY, A RISI NG FROM ITS IMPUGNED MUTUALITY ACCOUNT, WOULD NEVER BE TAXABLE SINCE SATISFYING THE FOREGOING THREE INGREDIENTS. IT IS AT THIS STAGE THAT WE TAKE NOTE OF THE CLINCHING STATUTORY EXPRESSIONS EMPLOYED IN SECTION 71 OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR S ET O FF OF L OSS FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM ANOTHER . WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO OBSERVE THAT THE LEGISLAT IVE EXPRESSION HEAD OF INCOME MUST BE TAKEN AS ANY OF THE FIVE HEADS OF INCOME PROVIDED U/S. 14 OF THE ACT I.E. SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFIT S AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES; RESPECTIVELY. WE THUS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE'S IMPUGNED DEFICIT ARISING FROM MUTUALITY ACCOUNT IS NEITHER COVERED IN ANY OF THE SAID HEADS AS WELL NOR U/S. 2(24)(VII) DEFINING INCOME IN THE VERY ACCOUNT , SECTION 71 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY IN ISOLATION. W E FURTHER DEEM IT 14 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 PROPER TO REFER TO HON'BLE APEX COURTS RECENT LARGER BENCH DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. DILIP KUMAR & CO. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) THAT PROVISIONS OF A TAXING STATUTES HAVE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED ONLY. WE NEXT QUOTE CIT VS. HARIPRASAD AND CO. P. LTD. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) THAT A LOSS ARISING FROM A HEAD OF INCOME NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST A TAXABLE SOURCE AS FOLLOWS : IT MAY BE REMEMBERED THAT THE CONCEPT OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS DOES NOT STAND IN VACUO. IT INVOLVES THE NOTION OF SET OFF. ITS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SET OFF THE LOSS AGAINST THE PROFITS OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT PRESUPPOSES THE PERMISSIBILITY AND POSSIBILITY OF THE CARRIED - FORWARD LOSS BEING ABSORBED OR SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. SET OFF IMPLIES THAT THE TAX IS EXIGIBLE AND THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO ADJUS T THE LOSS AGAINST PROFIT TO REDUCE THE TAX - DEMAND. IT FOLLOWS THAT IF SUCH SET - OFF IS NOT PERMISSIBLE OR POSSIBLE OWING TO THE INCOME OR PROFITS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR BEING FROM A NONTAXABLE SOURCE, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN ALLOWING THE LOSS TO BE 'CAR RIED FORWARD'. CONVERSELY, IF THE LOSS ARISING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS UNDER A HEAD NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, IT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND ABSORBED AGAINST INCOME IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, FROM A TAXABLE SOURCE. NOW LET US TEST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES. THE 'CAPITAL LOSS' OF RS. 28,662/ - IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS, SUSTAINED IN SEPTEMBER 1953, THAT IS, IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 1953 - 54. LET US ASSUME THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS 1955 - 56 AND 1956 - 57 WHEN THE CAPI TAL GAINS WERE NOT TAXABLE, HE MADE HUGE CAPITAL GAINS FAR EXCEEDING THIS LOSS, COULD HE BE OBLIGED TO SHOW THOSE CAPITAL GAINS ILL HIS RETURN? COULD THE LOSS OF THE YEAR 1953 - 54 BE ABSORBED OR SET OFF AGAINST SUCH CAPITAL GAINS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS? TH E ANSWER IS EMPHATICALLY IN THE NEGATIVE. 15 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN (2015) 367 ITR 261 (GUJ) KISHOREBHAI BIKABHAI VI RANI VS. ACIT ALSO HOLDS THAT A LOSS UNDER AN EXEMPT SOURCE IS NOT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AGAINST SUBSEQUENT YEARS INCOME. 10 . SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT THE FOREGOING JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS (SUPRA) HAVE DULY HELD THAT IT OUGHT TO ADOPT COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THERE WOULD BE HARDLY ANY DISPUTE QUA THE SAME. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT THAT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME BUT REGARDING SET OFF OF LOSS U/S.71 OF THE ACT WHICH IT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER STRICTLY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE ONLY GOING BY THE CLINCHING FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS ELIGIBLE FOR MUTUALITY BENEFIT QUA DE FICIT CLAIM ED AS LOSS. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE LAW IS DISTINGUISHABLE OF FACTS. 1 1 . LASTLY COMES THE LEARNED COUNSELS ARGUMENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA D ALREADY ACCEPTED APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT QUA SET OFF OF ITS LOSS CLAIM IN REMAND DIRECTION S (SUPRA), WE HOLD T HAT THE CIT(A) HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES GOING BY THE CORRESPONDING 16 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT FACTS RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE SAME ON MERITS. WE FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE IMPUGNED ARGUMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LEARNED CO - ORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN IT THOUGHT IT PROPER TO REDIRECT THE SAME BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION. WE THUS DECLINE THE ASSESSEE'S INSTANT SOLITARY S UBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE AS WELL AS THE MAIN LEAD APPEAL ITA NO.1388/HYD/2015. SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN ASSESSEE'S REMAINING THREE APPEALS 1389 & 1390 /HYD/2015 (HEARD ON 22.09.2021) SINCE L EARNED COUNSEL FAIRLY STATED AT BAR FOR ALL THESE FOUR CASES RAISE I DENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. 12. NEXT COMES THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS ITA NOS.1392 TO 1398/HYD/2015 (HEARD ON 29.09.2021) WHEREIN LEARNED COUNSEL HAS MADE A SIMILAR STATEMENT THAT OUR FOREGOING ADJUDICATION SQUARELY COVERS THE OUTCOME THEREIN. THESE S EVEN APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED THEREFORE. ITA 940 AND 941/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018. 17 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 13. LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEE'S FOUR APPEALS ITA NOS. 940 AND 941/HYD/2015 ALONG WITH 1103 & 1696/HYD/2018 FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13, 2014 - 15 AND 2015 - 16 THAT THE FIRST AND FOREMOST FOREGOING CASE RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAXING RS.1,77,20,876/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS DERIVED ON PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN NOT ADJUSTING THE LOSS FROM OTHER HEADS OF INCOME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70 AND 71 OF THE I T ACT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE LOSS FORM ONE HEAD CAN BE GIVEN SET OFF AGAINST THE GAIN FROM ANOTHER HEAD. THE FACTUAL POSITION IS NO DIFFERENT IN THE INSTANT REMAINING THREE APPEALS AS WELL APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLE DIFFERENCE IS THAT OF THE CLAIM AMOUNTS ONLY WHICH ADMITTEDLY HA D BEEN HELD AS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF BENEFIT. 18 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 HE THEREFORE DID NOT PRESS FOR THE FOREGOING FIRST AND FOREMOST ISSUE IN ALL THESE FOUR CASES. 14. THE ASSESSEE'S NEXT IDENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE SEEKING TO SET OFF ITS LOSS FROM MUTUALITY ACCOUNT (INVOLVING VARY ING FIGURE) IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY MERIT AS PER OUR FOREGOING DETAILED DISCUSSION. THESE FOUR APPEALS 940 AND 941/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 FAIL ACCORDINGLY. 15. WE ARE NOW LEFT WITH ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ITA NO.1399/HYD/ 2015 RAISING ITS SOL E SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE HEREIN THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING OF TDS CREDIT OF RS.68,989 IN 154 RECTIFICATION. LEARNED COUNSEL WAS FAIR ENOUGH AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED TO PRESS THE GROUND KEEPING IN MIND THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED . REJECTED ACCORDINGLY. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US. 19 ITA NO S . 1388 TO 1390; 940, 941, 1392 TO 1400/HYD/2015 & 1103 AND 1696/HYD/2018 1 6 . THESE ASSESSEE'S SIXTEEN APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN ABOVE TERMS. A C OPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH OCT . , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT. 25 . 10 .2021. * REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. M/S. THE SECUNDERABAD CLUB, 220, PICKET, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003 2. ITO, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD. 3. PR. C I T - 6 , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - 6, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, HYDERABAD.
Mehul