Since certain common disputes were raised in all these appeals, preferred by assessee, pertaining to asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and so all these appeals were against consolidated order of AAC dt. 16th July, 1984, these were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. main common ground in all three appeals is regarding exemption o f income of Club. Though for asst. yr. 1978-79, ground is also raised against s. 147(b) proceeding initiated by ITO under which assessment was framed and for rest of two years, i.e. 1980-81 and 1981-82, depreciation on matting and Linolum crockery and cuttlery, druggets and lines is raised. First of all, we deal with first ground raised for asst. yr. 1978-79 which read as under: "The ld. ITO has erred in law and facts of case by reopening case and framing assessment under s. 147(b)." ground is apparently not very happily worded, as it seems to be more repetition of ground which seems to have been raised by assessee before AAC. Anyway, in short ld. counsel for assessee Shri O. N. Chanta submitted that once assessment was framed for 1978-79 by ITO i n consolidated order dt. 30th Sept., 1978 which covered asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1978-79, same should not have been reopened. However he could not controvert that all facts regarding distinction in classes of Members or their charges made by Club from them in respect of liquor and other items, were not looked into by ITO at time of original assessment. He did not seem to be very serious about this issue. ld. Departmental Representative Sh. M. P. Singh in this regard relied on order of AAC. AAC dealt with this issue i n para 6 and 7 his order and observed that, discrimination between civil and army officers came to ITO s knowledge subsequently and therefore, it was in light of subsequent information that s. 147(b) proceedings were initiated. Once there is dispute raised by assessee regarding discrimination in Members and charge made from them was not there before ITO while framing original assessment, action of AAC in this regard does not call for any interference. second ground for 1978-79 regarding existence of mutuality of assessee s claim that its income should not be subjected to tax, this ground with different facts is also raised for asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82. All these ground are not again very happily worded and same seem to have been repeated before us what they were placed before AAC. We are not intentionally encumbering this order with detailed facts in background but would mentioned certain undisputed facts relevant for issue. Club permits Military officers, retired defence personals, civilians and units which are placed in Simla to be its members and actually the; are members. Different fees are charged from different types of Members. Liquor and other things which are supplied to members are also differently charged. There is no provision in memorandum under which Club has came into existence as to what would happen in case of its dissolution regarding assets owned by Club. For all these different facts for all assessment years under consideration, ITO denied benefit of doctrine of mutuality to Club and subjected net income to tax. When matter came before AAC, he confirmed same. While disputing said order of AAC, ld. counsel for assessee submitted that it is Club and mutuality is very much there because one cannot make profit out of self, but he could not deny any of above stated facts, which are more than detailed in orders of two lower authorities. ld. D. R., on other hand, beside relying on orders of two authorities submitted that there is no provision regarding disposal of assets at time of dissolution and benefit accordingly to different accounts of members is uncertain. He drew our attention to annexures of assessment order is which different rates are charged and also factum that different subscriptions are taken from different Members. According to him, question of mutuality in case of this type could not arise. He relied on case of CIT vs. Madras Race Club 1976 CTR (Mad) 377: (1976) 105 ITR 433 (Mad), besides decision of this very Bench in case of Haryana State Cooperative Labour & Construction Federation Ltd. in I.T.A. Nos. 772 etc./Chndi/84 dt. 29th Nov., 1984 and submitted that order of AAC does not call for in any interference. After taking into consideration undisputed facts, going through orders of two lower authorities and statement of honourary secretary orders of two lower authorities and statement of honourary secretary of Club as also annexures, we do not find controversy about different charges in respect of subscriptions from different Members and different charges from different Members in respect of liquor and other supplies. Undoubtedly, there is no provision on as to what would happen to Club assets in case of its winding up and in case, if it is presumed that in absence of clause to that effect, it would be equally distributed, we are afraid it will be very damaging to claim of assessee regarding mutuality. In case of this type, unless there was provision specifically made in memorandum that in case of winding up or dissolution of Club, it will revert back to Members in very same percentage in which they subscribed, assessee could not be entitled to benefit of mutuality. We had occasion to deal with this issue of mutuality in our order in ITA Nos. 772 (supra) and as per principles enunciated therein, which we have followed on strength of several Court decisions and as specifically it has been held by Madras High Court in CIT vs. Madras Race Club 1976 CTR (Mad) 377: (1976) 105 ITR 433 (Mad) that: "...............The subscription paid by members to assessee is bound up with business so that principle of mutuality will not apply to it. As subscription received is relatable also to business aspect assessee cannot claim exemption of whole of subscription." Further it is held in said case that: "................In case of claim for exemption, burden of justifying claim for exemption is on assessee and this burden had not been discharged in instant case." We are intentionally not encumbering this order with further observation and findings as same are more than detailed in well-written orders of two lower authorities, ITO and AAC. Therefore, action of AAC is hereby confirmed. We may observe before we part with matter that it was not case of assessee that it was Club meant for Army or Defence personnel and it could not be so obviously because its Membership was also open to civilians, though with difference. Under circumstances, benefit of exemption could not be granted to Club for either of three years. Coming to number of other grounds regarding different facts which are also in respect of exemption for asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82, we do not think any discussion is required because once on basis of doctrine of mutuality, which is as per judge-made law, benefit may not come to assessee, it would fall on all those facets also and special because they are based on undisputed facts of different subscriptions, different profit and no provision of reversion of assets on dissolution or winding up of Club. Now what survives for our consideration is only ground regarding depreciation on matting and linolium, crockery and cutlery, druggets and linen. In this regard, ld. counsel for assessee himself submitted that as matter of fact all these things should have been claimed as deduction on basis of replacement but since that was not done, therefore, assessee should be entitled for depreciation. ld. D. R. in this regard relied on order of AAC. When we peruse his order, we find that assessee could not put up any arguments before him nor before us he could point out as to under what section depreciation could be admissible to him on these items. It may be hard case because claim of deduction was not put in by assessee on basis of replacement or breakage. But since there is no provision for depreciation on items of this type, we are constrained to confirm finding of two lower authorities. As order of AAC for All three years is confirmed, in result, all three appeals are dismissed. *** SHIMLA AMATEUR DRAMATIC CLUB v. INCOME TAX OFFICER