JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - These are two applications u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 which for the sake of convenience are disposed of together, against the Tribunal's order dated 28-10-1986 refusing to make a statement of case on the following questions: "1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that the income from letting of the residential houses to its members was income from other sources and not Income from house property? 2. Whether the Tribunal without passing speaking order was wrong to hold that the income from letting of residential premises to its members was income from other sources when facts and material to give such finding had neither been discussed by the Tribunal nor in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who merely followed his previous order for assessment year 1980-81, that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) having been set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 19-11-1984? 3. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the income of the club on account of rent of building and furniture, etc., assessable under the head 'Other sources' was exempt from tax on the principle of mutuality?" The assessee is a Club Ltd. Co. Assessee-company derives income from sales of wines, tobacco, catering, entrance fee, rent from property, games, sports, etc. The assessee let out the furnished rooms and thus received rental income. The question arose whether such income was taxable in the hands of the assessee. 2. The Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that for the assessment years 1978-79 and 197940 in IT Appeal Nos. 508 and 509 (Delhi) of 1983, the Tribunal passed an order in the case of assessee on 27-10-1984 holding that the entire income from letting out of the houses was from the members of the club only. This i3 a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court. On these facts, the Tribunal held for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 that on the principle of mutuality, income to the club from the members is not liable to tax. This i3 a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court. On these facts, the Tribunal held for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 that on the principle of mutuality, income to the club from the members is not liable to tax. The principle of mutuality is equally applicable to a club which is a limited company and that being so income accruing to the club from the room rent received from the members is not taxable in the hands of the club and this point has become academic in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court, which need not be reproduced in this order. So far as the question Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the Tribunal clearly observed that no question was posed before it whether the rental income from the property belonging to the assessee was income from the property or income from other sources. The Tribunal observed in the impugned order: "Such a question was not even agitated before us and that is why there is no specific finding on this point. On the question whether the income in question was taxed as income from house property or as income from other sources, it appears that the revenue did not want to contest this point." 3. Having so observed, the Tribunal took the view that question Nos. 1 and 2 do not arise from the Tribunal's order dated 30-4-1986. On these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to ask the Tribunal to make a statement of the case on the question Nos. 1 and 2. 4. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the Tribunal clearly observed in the impugned order: "In ground No. 2 raised in the aforesaid appeals, the revenue had admitted that the letting out in this case was not merely of the building but also of the furniture." 5. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cawnpore Club Ltd., (1983) 34 CTR 313 , this Court found: "Income from house property postulates that what has essentially been let out is house property though some conveniences like fixtures, etc., may have incidentally been let out with it for proper enjoyment of the demised premises. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cawnpore Club Ltd., (1983) 34 CTR 313 , this Court found: "Income from house property postulates that what has essentially been let out is house property though some conveniences like fixtures, etc., may have incidentally been let out with it for proper enjoyment of the demised premises. If, however, the letting could not have taken place but for the fixtures, furnitures, etc., in the sense that the tenant or licensee would not have taken the premises but for them and the extent of income attributable to such fixtures or furnitures cannot conveniently be predicated, it would be income chargeable to tax under the residuary head of 'Income from other sources...." (p. 185) On these facts, the Tribunal took the view that question No. 3 is clearly covered by the aforementioned decision. This Court having given a clear finding on question No. 3 that income from furnished property which could have been let out as such, can be brought to tax only under the head 'Income from other sources'. We do not feel inclined to ask the Tribunal to remit a statement of the case on this question as well. For the reasons, the application fails and is dismissed.