2017 (8) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi Bench, 'C', New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No.4228/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2 crore made on account of subsidy received from the ASIDE Scheme from Government of India as a revenue receipt as the same has been received from a nonmember?" (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,47,113/- and Rs. 23,506/- on account of interest income received from the banks?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as nar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iety and its aims and objects for which it was being formed and run, had been brought on record. Since, there was lack of complete identity between the class of contributors and class of participants, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee society was not a mutual concern and was not covered by doctrine of mutuality. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received income by way of member's subscription, interest, miscellaneous income and grants under ASIDE Scheme of Government of India and these incomes were held as non member contribution but derived from other agencies/sources. The income so received by the assessee was held to be as a result of business activity in which profit motive was involved. The Asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was contradictory. The action of CIT(A) in upholding the addition of interest of Rs. 2,47,113/- and Rs. 23,506/- was held to be not correct in view of existence of concept of mutuality. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- holding that the amount was a capital receipt and was not liable to tax. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer shows that inspite of notice issued to the assesssee, it did not attend the proceedings nor any written reply was filed. The case was fixed for 22.12.2008, the assessee was asked vide letter dated 19.12.2008 to show cause as to why the assessment proceedings be ....