ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by an assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 27th Jan., 2005 passed by Tribunal, Indore, in ITA No. 690/Ind/1998. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 59,000 received by the appellant assessee from bank is liable to income-tax and the principle of mii'cuality is not applicable to the interest received from bank? 2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel, with Shri D.S. Kale, counsel for appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel, with Ku. Veena Mandlik, counsel for respondent. 3. Facts necessary for the disposal of appeal need mention in brief infra. 4. The assessee (appellant herein) is a private limited company. The assessee filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96, declaring their total income of Rs. 2,42,870 from various sources. In this income, the assessee disclosed that it has earned income by way of interest during the period in question amounting to Rs. 59,000 from the bank deposits (FDR). However, assessee claimed exemption from payment of income-tax on the income earned by way of interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 59,000. According to assessee they being a company in the nature of mutual association involving no commerciality in their working and hence, on the principle of mutuality, they were not liable to pay any income-tax on this part of income of Rs. 59,000. In other words, the case of assessee was that it being a company formed by certain shopkeepers having their shops in M.T. Cloth Market at Indore, essentially for the benefit of members (i.e. shopkeepers) only who have made contribution to the corpus of company for allotment of one shop to each member/shareholder, it has no business activity as such. It was claimed that company is not formed for earning any profit nor it is engaged in any kind of business activity and the only income of the company, which is earned, consists of amount recovered from the members towards contribution for development of land, construction of shops and interest on delayed payment of their share contribution, etc. It was claimed that company is not formed for earning any profit nor it is engaged in any kind of business activity and the only income of the company, which is earned, consists of amount recovered from the members towards contribution for development of land, construction of shops and interest on delayed payment of their share contribution, etc. It was claimed that merely because some surplus amount lying with the company is deposited in fixed deposit in bank for earning interest cannot be said to be an income for being taxed under the IT Act. It was according to assessee exempted from payment of income-tax by applying the principle of mutuality. 5. So the question that arose for consideration before the AO was whether an amount of Rs. 59,000 earned by the assessee by way of interest on FDR during the period in question is liable to be taxed in the hands of assessee or it is exempted from payment of tax by applying the principle of mutuality? 6. By order dt. 4th Feb., 1998 (Annex. A-l), the AO rejected the claim of assessee and held that an amount of Rs. 59,000 earned by assessee by way of interest is taxable under the IT Act. It was held that since the assessee has received deposits from various shareholders/members, which are deposited in bank for earning interest, such income cannot be exempted from payment of tax. In other words, the AO did not accept the contention of assessee for giving benefit of principle of mutuality to assessee. 7. The assessee felt aggrieved of the order of AO filed appeal to CIT(A). By order dt. 10th July, 1998 (Annex. A-2), the CIT(A) upheld the order of AO and dismissed the appeal. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal to Tribunal. By impugned order (Annex. A-5), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of AO and that of CIT(A). While upholding the order, the Tribunal after taking note of several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court held as under in paras 9 and 9(1): 9. Keeping in view the above principles, it is clear that the income of a company or a mutual association from every source is not exempt from tax. Only such income is exempt from tax, which arises out of dealing with the members only. Keeping in view the above principles, it is clear that the income of a company or a mutual association from every source is not exempt from tax. Only such income is exempt from tax, which arises out of dealing with the members only. The principle of mutuality is not applicable in respect of income which is derived by a mutual association from activities with non-members. There should be complete identity between the contributors and participators. Decision of Gujarat High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point that the assessee has to be taxed in the status of a body of individual [CIT v. [1997]227ITR260(SC) ]. The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Cawnpore Club Ltd. but in this case the assessee derived income from letting out of room to its members. The issue regarding receipt of interest on fixed deposit from bank was not at all involved, therefore, this case is not at all applicable to the case of the assessee. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench in the case of Faith Maidan Club v. Asstt. CIT. In this case no doubt the interest income from bank was held exempt on the ground of mutuality. In this case, the Tribunal had considered the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Natraj Finance Corporation and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Cawnpore Club Ltd. As discussed above, the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Cawnpore Club Ltd. is not applicable because in that decision only the issue involved was income from letting out of room to its members. In the case of Cawnpore Club Ltd., there was complete identity between the recipient and participator but in case of receipt of interest from the bank there is no such identity between the bank who is not a member of the association but the Tribunal Hyderabad Bench was bound to follow the decision of Natraj Finance Corporation. In view of the decision cited above, it is clear that the following conditions should be satisfied before a mutual association claims exemption: 9(i) There should be complete identity between the participator and contributor to the fund. In view of the decision cited above, it is clear that the following conditions should be satisfied before a mutual association claims exemption: 9(i) There should be complete identity between the participator and contributor to the fund. Since the interest received on the fixed deposit is from bank which is not a part of mutual association, the income from interest is not exempt from tax in view of the various decisions cited above. I, therefore, hold that the interest on fixed deposit from the bank in case of assessee company is taxable as income from other sources in view of the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) . 8. It is against this order the assessee has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. As stated supra, the appeal was admitted for final hearing on aforementioned substantial question of law. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant (assessee) while assailing the view taken by AO, CIT(A) and Tribunal contended that the same is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases CIT v. [1997] 226 ITR 97 (SC) and Chelmsford Club v. [2000] 243 ITR 89 (SC). According to learned Counsel, since the assessee is not involved in any commercial activity for earning profit and this being one of the essential elements in favour of assessee, no tax could be levied on the interest income of Rs. 59,000 earned on FDR. it was submitted that merely because some amount lying with assessee as surplus is kept in safe custody i.e. in bank, which has earned interest, cannot be termed as an 'income' of an assessee for being taxed when all other attributes attracting the principle of mutuality are satisfied by assessee. 10. In reply, learned Counsel for the Revenue on the other hand contended that the issue involved in this case is decided by two High Courts i.e. Gujarat [Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. [1988] 171 ITR 504 (Guj) ] and Karnataka [CIT v. [2006] 287 ITR 263 (KAR) ] against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. It was his contention that the two decisions relied on by the Supreme Court only lay down general principle explaining the scope and ambit of doctrine of mutuality but have not decided the issue which is subject-matter of this appeal. It was his contention that the two decisions relied on by the Supreme Court only lay down general principle explaining the scope and ambit of doctrine of mutuality but have not decided the issue which is subject-matter of this appeal. He, therefore, urged that these decisions are distinguishable on facts and cannot be relied on for upsetting the impugned orders of the Tribunal. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as in our opinion, the views taken by all authorities do not call for any interference. 12. The law recognizes the principle of mutuality and its application in appropriate cases. This doctrine, though not defined, has been judicially recognized by the Courts for applicability in appropriate cases. Their Lordships of Privy Council had the occasion to examine the true meaning of the doctrine in the case The English & Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. IT (1948) 16 ITR 270 (PC). It is in this case, their Lordships laid down three guidelines existence of which establishes the doctrine of mutuality in a case. The guidelines are: (1) the identity of the contributors to the fund and the recipients from the fund, (2) the treatment of the company, though incorporated as a mere entity for the convenience of the members and policyholders, in other words, as an instrument obedient to their mandate, and (3) the impossibility that contributors should derive profits from contributions made by themselves to a fund which could only be expended or returned to themselves. 13. The aforesaid law laid down by judicial committee was affirmed by Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. : [1953] 24 ITR 551(SC) and then in Chelmsford Club v. CIT (supra). 14. In our considered view, it is essentially this test which is quoted above that has to be applied in the facts of each case with a view to find out as to whether assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of doctrine of mutuality for seeking exemption from payment of income-tax on the particular income sought to be taxed by the Revenue in his hand. 15. 15. As rightly urged by learned Counsel for Revenue, the issue involved in this case came up for consideration for the first time before Gujarat High Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT (supra). In this case, the club was incorporated as a company. Its main object was to promote the game of cricket and other games and sports. The object clause in the memorandum and articles of association empowered those in the management of the club; to invest and deal with money of the club not immediately required in such manner as may from time to time be determined by them. The club (assessee) had some income by way of interest on fixed deposit. The club, therefore, claimed exemption from payment of income-tax on this income, but the ITO rejected the claim. The Tribunal however in an appeal filed by club held in their favour by holding that income assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" would not be exigible to tax on the principle of mutuality, since according to Tribunal there was complete identity between the contributors and the participants but income derived by way of interest on the fixed deposit with banks minus 10 per cent was allowed under Section 57(iii) as income exigible to tax. In further appeal, the High Court held that assessee's income from interest was not from mutual activity and as such it was exigible to tax. 16. The learned Judge Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was a Judge of High Court of Gujarat and later became Chief Justice of India) speaking for the Bench, discussed this issue very elaborately and held as under: We new revert to the question whether the income derived by way banks is exigible to tax notwithstanding the finding that the principle of mutuality applies to the assessee club. We have already pointed out earlier that one of the essentials of mutuality is that the contributors to the common fund are entitled to participate in the surplus, thereby creating an identity between the participators and the contributors. Once such an identity is established, the surplus income would not be exigible to tax on the principle that no man can make a profit out of himself. Once such an identity is established, the surplus income would not be exigible to tax on the principle that no man can make a profit out of himself. However, as pointed out earlier, the objects clause in the memorandum and articles of association empowers those in the management of the assessee club to invest and deal with moneys of the club not immediately required in such manner as may from time to time be determined by them. Under this clause, the investment need not be confined to investment by way of fixed deposits with banks. It can take any other form or shape, such as investment in shares, real estate etc. When income is derived from such investment, whether by way of interest, dividend or rent, it is derived from a third party and is not by way of contribution from the members of the club. We have also noticed that Clause (vii) of the memorandum and articles of association provides that in the event of winding-up or dissolution of the club, if there remains any surplus after satisfying all the debts and liabilities, the same shall be paid or distributed amongst the members in equal shares. If the income derived from investments over a period of time is added to the surplus, there can be no doubt that when the surplus is distributed, a component of return on investment would go to the members in equal shares. This component of return which the members will receive will not be by way of a plough back of their own contributions by way of fees, etc., to the club. An association which receives such income can be said to be indulging in both mutual activity as well as non-mutual activity. That is why in CIT v. Madras Race Club 1976 CTR (Mad) 377 : (1976) 105 ITR 433 (Mad), it was observed that the application of the principle of mutuality is not destroyed by the presence of transactions which are non-mutual in character. The principle of mutuality can in such cases be confined to transactions with members. The two activities can in appropriate cases be separated and the profits derived from non-members can be brought to tax. The principle of mutuality can in such cases be confined to transactions with members. The two activities can in appropriate cases be separated and the profits derived from non-members can be brought to tax. In Carlisle and Silloth Golf Club v. Smith (1912) 6 Tax Cases 48 (KB), the golf club in question which was admittedly a bona fide members' club was bound, under a clause in its lease, to admit non-members to play on its course on payment of green fees to be fixed by the lessors but not to be below a minimum fixed in the lease. It was held that the club, for the purpose of income-tax was carrying on a concern or business which was capable of being isolated and defined and in respect of which it received remuneration which was assessable. This view was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, vide Carlisle and Silloth Golf Club v. Smith (1913) 6 Tax Cases 198 (CA). In Automobile Association of Bengal v. [1968] 69 ITR 878(Cal) , the association, a mutual concern, run on no profit basis, published a monthly magazine for the benefit of its members. The association received advertisements from non-members as well as members and charged from the publication thereof. The association contended that advertisement charges received from members were not taxable as income. Alternatively, it was contended that the entire cost of production of the magazine should, in any event, be deducted in computing the income from advertisement. The tax authorities overruled both the contentions and treated the advertisement charges received from members as assessable income and allowed only a part of cost of production to be set off against the advertisement receipts. On a reference, the High Court held that the profit earned by the association went to increase the funds of the association and benefits out of the same came to the members qua members, but not qua contributors or advertisers. It found that since the money was collected by the assessee association, by way of advertisement charges, from a certain number of members, but the profit made therefrom was not distributed amongst them as advertisers, there was absence of mutuality and this made the profit the income of the assessee association and taxable as such. From the above discussion, it seems clear to us that the income received by the assessee-club by way of interest is exigible to tax. From the above discussion, it seems clear to us that the income received by the assessee-club by way of interest is exigible to tax. It was lastly argued by counsel for the assessee that the investment of the unutilized surplus in fixed deposits was merely incidental to the main objects of the club and, therefore, the income from interest received from the banks on the fixed deposits could not be brought to tax. In support of this contention, considerable reliance was placed on the following observation found at p. 696 in IRC v. Westleigh Estates Co. Ltd. (1925) 12 Tax Cas 657: I think the proper mode of regarding the company in the present case is a convenient instrument or medium for enabling the members to conduct a social club the objects of which are immune from every taint of commerciality, the transactions of sale and purchase being merely incidental to the attainment of the main object These observations must be read in the context of the facts of the case. There a company was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. Its main object was to promote social intercourse between gentlemen connected (directly or indirectly) with literature, art, music, drama, scientific and liberal professions, sports and commerce and with a view thereto to establish, maintain and conduct a club of a non-political character for the accommodation of members of the club and their friends, and to provide a club house and other conveniences, and generally to afford to members and their friends all the usual privileges, advantages, convenience and accommodation of a club. Incidentally, certain other things which are usually done by social clubs, for example, buying, preparing and selling of provisions, was included in the memorandum. The income and property of the club were to be applied towards promotion of the objects of the club as set out above. All the members of the company were members of the club. No payment for provisions supplied in the club were taken from any person who was not a member thereof. The income and property of the club were to be applied towards promotion of the objects of the club as set out above. All the members of the company were members of the club. No payment for provisions supplied in the club were taken from any person who was not a member thereof. In this background the question arose whether the profits could be charged to tax and it is in this context that the above observation came to be made which only shows that the objects of the club should be immune from every taint of commerciality and this also applied to the transactions of sale and purchase which were being incidentally undertaken for the attainment of the main object of the club. The buying, preparing and selling of provisions which were incidental to the main object of the club were also limited to the members of the club and not extended to outsiders. This incidental activity was also, therefore, immune from the taint of commerciality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above observation on which considerable reliance was placed by counsel for the assessee cannot go to the aid of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that all the three questions formulated by the Tribunal and referred to us must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 17. This issue again came up for consideration before Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Bangalore Club (supra). Their Lordships placing reliance on Sports Club's case (supra) and distinguishing two Supreme Court's decisions relied on by learned Counsel for assessee as reported in Chelmsford Club v. CIT (supra) and CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra) took the same view as was taken by Gujarat High Court in Sports Club's case (supra). This is what their Lordships held while holding the interest income to be exigible to tax in hands of assessee: On the facts of this case and in the light of the legal principles it is clear to us that what has been done by the club is nothing but what could have been done by a customer of a bank. The principle of 'no man can trade with himself is not available in respect of a nationalized bank holding a fixed deposit on behalf of its customer. The relationship is one of a banker and a customer. 18. We are completely in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts in aforementioned two cases because in the first place, the same is in accord with the law dealing with such types of cases. Secondly, the law laid down in these two decisions continues to hold the field and is not either overruled or distinguished by any decisions of the Supreme Court. That apart, we do not find any good ground to deviate from the principle laid down therein. In our view, the law laid down in these two decisions squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand, because in this case also the assessee had deposited its surplus money in FDR and earned interest on FDR from the bank. 19. In our opinion, where assessee deposits the money in bank for earning an interest, their relations are not based on mutuality but they are of customer and the banker. The principle of mutuality in such transaction is therefore, totally missing. A transaction of such nature, which brings into account some income, can always be separated from other income for being taxed in the hands of assessee notwithstanding existence of mutuality being made applicable for other income of the assessee. In other words, even if principle of mutuality is applied for 'A' income of such assessee, then it does not necessarily mean that it also applies to 'B' income of assessee. One is thus required to examine in each case the source of income of the assessee which is sought to be taxed and to find out who are parties to such transaction which brought the said income to the assessee. 20. As rightly taken note of by the Tribunal in para 9 of its order, the object of assessee company as is clear from Clause 2 of memorandum of association is also to carry business of manufacture of thread, sewing thread cord, tab made out of cotton, art silk, nylon, synthetic, fiber, etc. In addition, the memorandum and articles of association also set out other kinds of businesses, which can be carried by the assessee. In addition, the memorandum and articles of association also set out other kinds of businesses, which can be carried by the assessee. All these facts clearly go to show that interest income earned by the assessee can be utilized for carrying on various kinds of business activities which involve commercial element thereby making the principle of mutuality inapplicable to the transaction in question i.e. income earned by way of interest from FDR on this additional ground. 21. We have gone through the decisions cited by learned Counsel for appellant. In our view, reliance placed by learned Counsel for assessee on the decision CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. It is distinguishable on facts. In this case, the question that fell for consideration was whether profits arising from sales made to regular members of club are entitled to claim exemption on the doctrine of mutuality and secondly, whether receipts for various facilities extended by club to its members as part of usual privileges, advantages and conveniences which are attached to membership of club can be said to be a trading activity and if so, whether any surplus can be regarded as income for purpose of the IT Act. Their Lordships on facts of the case held in favour of assessee. However, the question as to whether income earned as interest on FDR was left open for decision and was not decided. This is clear from what their Lordships observed in para 13: 13. The above four sets of cases falling in groups A to D shall alone be covered by this judgment With regard to seven cases/appeals falling in group E, the assessee is Cawnpore Club Ltd. It is seen that the income that was sought to be assessed in the case of assessee, was one derived from property let out and also interest received from FDR, NSC, etc. In these cases, the Court held that income should be assessed as one from 'other sources' and not income from property. It does not appear that the larger plea that the income is totally exempt on the principle of mutuality, was decided in favour of the assessee. In the appeals filed by the Revenue, the only question that may probably arise is, whether income received from the property let out and interest by way of FDRs, NSC, etc. can be brought to tax under the head 'Income from property'. In the appeals filed by the Revenue, the only question that may probably arise is, whether income received from the property let out and interest by way of FDRs, NSC, etc. can be brought to tax under the head 'Income from property'. Since the issue raised in this batch of seven cases is not similar to or same as the one involved in the other cases coming under groups A to D, we do not propose to deal either with the facts or the decisions rendered by the authorities in this batch of cases (group E). All that we propose to do is to delink the cases coming under group E and direct them to be posted separately for hearing and disposal before an appropriate Bench. This decision is, therefore, of no help to assessee for answering the question involved in this appeal in their favour. 23. Same is the case Chelmsford Club v. CIT (supra). In this case also, the question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether income i.e. ALV of the club building was assessable when the club was running on no profit, no loss basis. Their Lordships answered the issue in favour of assessee club. So, the question; whether interest earned on FDR can be taxed or not, did not fall for consideration even in this case. In this view of the matter, no help can be taken of this decision also for answering the issue in question in appellant's favour. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellant then placed reliance on decision in CIT v. Cawnpore Club Ltd. (2004) 140 Taxman 378 (SC). We have gone through the ratio of this decision. In our view, it is also of no help to the appellant. In the first place, the decision does not lay down any law as such because it has not discussed any issue much less in detail. Secondly, it is distinguishable on facts. Thirdly, it does not decide the issue of income earned by way of interest on FDR. Fourthly, the question involved in this case was whether income earned by the club by letting out the rooms to their members can be subjected to tax or is exempt on the principle of mutuality. Their Lordships held this issue in assessee's favour. Such is not the case here. 25. Fourthly, the question involved in this case was whether income earned by the club by letting out the rooms to their members can be subjected to tax or is exempt on the principle of mutuality. Their Lordships held this issue in assessee's favour. Such is not the case here. 25. Learned Counsel for the appellant (assessee) then placed reliance on one article reported in 287 ITR 4 written by one author on the principle of mutuality in which the learned author has opined that the decisions rendered by Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts require reconsideration in the light of some observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Chelmsford Club v. CIT (supra) and CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra). We find no merit in this submission. In our view, reliance placed on opinion of any author is not binding on us, because it is not a judicial precedent but it is the personal view of an individual author. The Courts are bound and guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, as also the views of other High Courts for taking a particular view. We, therefore, cannot place any reliance on this article howsoever persuasive it may be in his view, nor are we persuaded to differ with the views taken by Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts in aforementioned 2 cases by placing reliance on the article. 26. Learned Counsel for appellant also placed reliance on a passage from Sampat Ayyangar as also decisions in CIT v. [2006] 287 ITR 22 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nataraj Finance Corporation (1988) 69 CTR 15 (AP) : (1988) 169 ITR 732 (AP). Having perused them, we do not find any good ground to place reliance on them in the light of our reasoning recorded supra. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.