IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.450 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. The Ludhiana Aggarwal Co-op. Housing Building Society Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 30.7.2009 in I.T.A. No.577/CHANDI/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that principle of mutuality apply in this case?” 3. The assessee is running a school apart from other activities. The assessee filed its return declaring loss but the I.T.A. No.450 of 2010 Assessing Officer made addition and assessed the income accordingly. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed that 50% of the income should be treated to be exempt on the principle of mutuality. On appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal set aside the direction to treat 50% income to be exempt on the principle of mutuality on the ground that percentage had to be worked out on facts. Tthe matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment after considering the plea of mutuality raised by the assessee. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the case of the assessee itself for the earlier assessment year. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show the status of the earlier order of the Tribunal. However, he states that fresh assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of earlier order of the Tribunal. Thus, the said order having attained finality, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, following the earlier order. 6. In view of above, the question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 22, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 2