The ACIT, Guntur V. M/s. Sri Bharathi Waresousing Corporation, Guntur

ITA 73/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6625 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S N MURTHY
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7 3 / VIZ /201 7 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 1 3 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), GUNTUR. V S . M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, 8 - 24 - 31, MANGALAGIRI ROAD, GUNTUR. PAN NO. AAVFS 5390 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T.S.N. MURTHY CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 0 9 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 / 1 0 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , GUNTUR , DATED 31 / 1 0/201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE - FIRM M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LET OUT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND TRADING IN TOBACCO . THE ASSESSEE - FIRM HAS RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME MAINLY FROM STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI; FORTIS HEALTH CARE LTD.; AMITY GLOBAL VARSITY; M/S. SPENCER INDIA LTD.; POLISETTY S O MSUNDAR AM, NALLAPADU GODOWN ; POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM, 2 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) MEDARAMETLA; FLAT AT BILAKHALLI, BANGALORE AND SAMPATH NAGAR HOUSE, GUNTUR OF 4,86,39,620/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE ABOV E COMPANIES ARE INCOME FROM BUSINESS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED IT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3 . ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO S . 275/VIZ/2012 & 78/VIZ/2013 HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RE CEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL WHETHER INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 IN ITA NOS. 275/VIZ/2012 & 78/VIZ/2013 , BY ORDER DATED 19/02/2016 & 06/01/2017 RESPECTIVELY , AND HELD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IN ITA NO. 335/VIZ/2016 , BY ORDER DATED 28/04/2017 , THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN 3 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) CASE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA & A . P . IN ITTA NO. 667/2010 DATED 31/01/20 07 HAS HELD THAT INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS , THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE , UNDER SAME SET OF FACTS , HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 . T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 335/VIZ/2016 , BY CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA & A.P. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITTA NO. 667/2010 HAS HELD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WHICH LEADS TO ADDITIONS TOWARDS RENTAL INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE AC TIVITY OF TAKING LANDS LEASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND LET OUT THE SAME ON MONTHLY RENTAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED RENTAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE A.O. ASSESSED RENTAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN COVERED BY THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.275/VIZAG/2012 DATED 19.2.2016. WE, FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT RENTAL INCOME FROM LETTING OUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BUT NOT 4 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE RELEV ANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS SRI BHARATI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION EXISTED BY VIRTUE O F PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21.1.2000. AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE OBJECT OF THE FIRM IS THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IS TO CONSTRUCT GODOWNS OR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR FLATS OR COMMERCIAL SHOPS, ETC. ON LANDS OWNED BY THE FIRM OR BY TAKING L AND ON LONG LEASE BASIS FROM OTHERS, AS MUTUALLY AGREED UPON FROM TIME TO TIME, AND LEASE OUT THE SAME TO OTHERS. IT IS ALSO MUTUALLY AGREED THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESS ALSO MAY BE CARRIED WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF ALL THE PARTNERS IF DEEMED LUCRATIVE. FRO M THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO ACQUIRE THE LAND BY ITS OWN OR BY LEASE OUT THE LAND FOR A LONGER PERIOD AND THERE AFTER CONSTRUCT A BUILDING AND LEASE OUT THE SAME TO THE THIRD PARTIES. THIS IS THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT NEAR ABOUT 4 PROPERTIES ONE TO STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI, SECOND TO BATA INDIA LIMITED, CALCUTTA, THIRD TO EDS ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS INDIA (P) LIMITED AND FOURTH TO F OOD WORLD SUPER MARKET (SPENCER) LIMITED, THOUGH THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED TO CONSTRUCT THE GODOWNS OR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR FLATS OR COMMERCIAL SHOPS ON LAND OWNED BY THE FIRM BY TAKING L AND ON LEASE BASIS FROM OTHERS, LEASED OUT OR SALE TO OTHERS, BESIDES CONDUCTING THE TOBACCO BUSINESS, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT A BUSINESS INCOME BY FOLLOWING CERTAIN JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS UNDERTAKEN A SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY I.E. TO TAKE A PROPERTY ON LEASE OR PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCT A BUILDING AND LEASE OUT THE SAME TO A THIRD PARTY ON COMMERCIAL BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ACTIVITY IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS TO BE TREATED AS A BUSINESS INCOME NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THA T THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD MENTIONS MAIN OBJECTS AS WELL AS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLIARY OBJECTS IN CLAUSE III(A) AND (B) RESPECTIVELY. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD TH E PROPERTIES KNOWN AS CHENNAI HOUSE AND FIRHAVIN ESTATE BOTH IN CHENNAI AND TO LET OUT THOSE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS MAKE ADVANCES UPON THE SECURITY OF LANDS AND BUILDINGS OR OTHER PROPERTIES OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN. WHAT WE EMPHASISE IS THAT HOLDING TH E AFORESAID PROPERTIES AND EARNING INCOME BY LETTING OUT THOSE PROPERTIES IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY. IT MAY FURTHER BE RECORDED THAT IN THE RETURN THAT WAS 5 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) FILED, THE ENTIRE INCOME WHICH ACCRUED AND WAS ASSESSED THE SAID RETURN WAS FROM LETTING OUT OF THESE PROPERTIES. IT IS ALSO RECORDED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY CONSIDERING THE EAST INDIA HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTIES IS IN FACT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE THEREFORE RIGHTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A N INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE LAND ON LEASE BASIS IN VARIOUS PLACES I.E. MUMBAI, KOLKATA, BANGALORE, CHENNAI AND CONSTRUCTED COMMERCIAL COMPLEXES AND LEAS ED OUT THE SAME TO THE COMMERCIAL ENTREPRENEURS SUCH AS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, BATA INDIA LIMITED, EDS ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS INDIA (P) LTD. AND SPENCERS FOR A HIGHER RENTAL AMOUNT. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS EXISTED IS TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY SUCH AS TO CONSTRUCT THE GODOWNS OR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR COMMERCIAL SHOPS, ETC. THE LANDS OWNED BY FIRM OR BY TAKING LAND ON LONG LEASE FROM OTHERS IS THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OU R OPINION, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 13. SO FAR AS THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED ITS PROPERTIES AT VARIOUS PLACES AND LET OUT TO DIFFERENT TENANTS FOR A LONGER PERIOD, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BUSINESS A CTIVITY. SO FAR AS THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. PREMALATHA 367 ITR 298 (AP) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LEASE WAS FOR A FAIRLY LONGER PERIOD DOES NOT BRING ABOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE C HARACTER OF RIGHTS. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING ON THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE WAS OBVIOUSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT WITH AN INTENTION TO OWN IT. IF THE INTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT WAS TO OWN THE PROPERTY, THE TRANSACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN DIF FERENT ALTOGETHER. THOUGH THE LEASE WAS ONE OF THE FORMS OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT LEAD TO CONFERMENT OF RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP. 14. WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES (SUPRA) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CHALLENGING THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA & A.P. 6 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN ITTA NO.667 OF 2010 DATED 3 1.1.2007 DISMISSED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21.01.2000 OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PART OF THE MATERIAL PAPERS. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WOULD SHOW THAT THREE PARTNERS CONSTITUTED A PARTNERSH IP FIRM NAMELY SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION BY VIRTUE OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21.01.2000. IN IT, THEY GOT IT MENTIONED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS SHALL BE CARRIED ON UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, GUNTUR AND THE PARTNERSHIP WAS AT WILL. REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON BY THE SAID FIRM, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE FIRM WAS TO CONSTRUCT GODOWNS OR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR FLATS OR COMMERCIAL SHOPS ETC, ON THE LANDS EITHER OWNED BY THE FIRM OR BY TAKING LAND ON LONG LEASE FROM OTHERS AND LEASE OUT THE SAME TO OTHERS. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESS ALSO MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF ALL THE PARTNERS IF DEEMED LUCRATIVE. A) THUS A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE AB OVE TERMS WOULD UNHESITATINGLY MANIFEST THAT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS IN CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR FLATS OR COMMERCIAL SHOPS ETC., ON THE LANDS EITHER OWNED BY THE FIRM OR BY TAKING ON LONG LEASE BASIS FROM OTHERS AND LEASE OUT THE SAME TO OTHERS. THE TERMS WOULD FURTHER SIGNIFY THAT DOING OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS WAS ONLY ANCILLIARY TO THE MAIN BUSINESS AND THAT TOO AN OPTIONAL ONE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CLAUSE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ALSO MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF ALL THE PARTNERS IF DEEMED LUCRATIVE. NON - MENTIONING OF SPECIFIC TYPE OF BUSINESS AND DOING OF SUCH UNSPECIFIED BUSINESS, ONLY IF THE PARTNERS DEEMED IT LUCRATIVE, WOULD INDICATE THAT THE UNSPEC IFIED BUSINESS PROPOSED TO BE CARRIED ON WITH MUTUAL CONSENT WAS ONLY AN OPTIONAL BUT NOT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THUS THE OPTIONAL BUSINESS PROPOSED WAS NOT AS CLEAR AND EMPHATIC AS THAT OF THE MAIN BUSINESS. B) BE THAT AS IT MAY, ADMITT EDLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD UNDER SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSEE FIRM EARNED INCOME IN TOBACCO BUSINESS AS WELL AS BY RENTS. HENCE THE POINT WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FIRM UNDER LAW, WAS ENTITLED TO SHOW BOTH THE INCOMES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS O R UNDER TWO DIFFERENT HEADS I.E., INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. C) IN M/S. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., CHENNAIS CASE (SUPRA), THE BRIEF FACTS WERE THAT THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE WAS A COMPANY AND ITS MAIN OBJECT IVE AS STATED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WAS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTIES 7 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) IN CITY OF MADRAS AND TO LET OUT THOSE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED ITS RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN ITS RETURN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED IT UNDER THE HEAD RENTAL INCOME. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. THEN THE DEPARTMENT APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT AN D ITS APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE INCOME TAX DERIVED BY LETTING OUT THE PROPERTIES WOULD NOT BE THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS BUT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE THEN CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE APEX COURT. CONSIDERING ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENTS, THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THE DECIDING FACTOR WAS NOT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OR LEASE BUT THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF THE OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO THEM AND ULTIMATELY HELD, THAT THE LETTING OF THE PR OPERTIES WAS IN FACT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE APPEAL. D) APPLYING THE ABOVE RATIO TO THE INSTANT CASE, IT CAN BE EMPHATICALLY SAID TH AT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS MANIFEST FROM THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS SUCH AS GODOWNS, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, FLATS, SHOPS ETC., AND LEASE THEM OUT AS A PART OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT NOT AS EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON OWNER. IN SIMPLE, CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS AND LEASING THEM OUT WAS THE MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE FIRM AND DOING OTHER ACTIVITY WAS ONLY AN OPTIONAL ONE. IN THA T VIEW, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS RIGHT IN SHOWING ITS BOTH INCOMES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE SHOWN UNDER A DIFFERENT HEAD. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE OTHER ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN THE PREVIOUS INSTANCES THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE WAS THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT A BUSINESS INCOME, IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO IT SHOULD HAVE HELD SIMILARLY, FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE EARLIER INSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO OCCASION TO PERUSE THE JUDGEMENT IN M/S. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., CHENNAIS CASE (SUPRA) WHICH WAS RENDERED BY THE APEX COURT ON 9.4.2015. 7) AT THE OUTSET, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE ADMISSION STAGE. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TELA NGANA AND A.P. HIGH COURT, I N 8 ITA NO. 73 /VIZ/2017 ( M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ) ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RENTAL RECEIPT FROM LETTING OUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM PROFIT & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 0 6 T H DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 6 T H OCTOBER , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - M/S. SRI BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, 8 - 24 - 31, MANGALAGIRI ROAD, GUNTUR. 2. THE REVENUE - ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), GUNTUR. 3. THE P CIT , GUNTUR. 4. THE CIT(A) - 1, GUNTUR. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.