1986-VIL-384-MP-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1987] 164 ITR 571, 59 CTR 135

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Date: 09.10.1986

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Vs

LAXMI RICE MILLS

BENCH

Judge(s)  : G. G. SOHANI., M. D. BHAT 

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

G. G. SOHANI, Actg. C.J.-The judgment in this case will also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Cases Nos. 134 and 191 both of 1982, as common questions of law arise in all these references:

As directed by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion :

" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee-firm was assessable under the head 'Business income' or under the head 'Income from other sources' ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting continuance of registration to the assessee-firm ? "

The material facts giving rise to these references as set out in the statement of the case briefly are as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm. Till the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee-firm was carrying on the business of a rice mill, but thereafter the rice mill was given on lease to another concern. From the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee had also commenced the business of exhibition of films but by an agreement dated December 13, 1964, the cinema theatre was also given on lease for period of seven years by the assessee-firm. The Income-tax Officer held that the income received by the assessee from the lease of the rice mill and the cinema theatre was not business income but was assessable as " income from other sources ". The Income-tax Officer further held that in this view of the matter, the question of granting continuation of registration to the assessee-firm did not arise and the claim of the assessee for continuation of registration was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee thereupon preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material on record, found that the income received by the assessee from the lease of the rice mill and the cinema theatre was business income and that the assessee was also entitled to continuation of registration. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought reference but as the application seeking reference was rejected by the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an application before this court under section 256(2) of the Act which was allowed, and the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion.

The main question for consideration is in what cases income from letting out a business asset can be held to be assessable as business income. A number of decisions were cited before us but it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions because, in our opinion, each case must be decided on its own circumstances, keeping in view the following principles referred to in CIT v. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 769 (Cal) which are instructive (p. 776):

" (1) In order to be a business income within the meaning of section 10, there must be evidence of exploitation of a commercial asset.

(2) Exploitation of a commercial asset does not necessarily mean exploitation by the assessee himself at all material times. The assessee may temporarily cause it to be exploited by another person against payment of consideration and for this purpose may also execute a lease for fixed period even with clauses of option to renew.

(3) But in order that the income derived from the lease would be taxable under section 10, it must be shown that the lessor's intention was that during the period of the lease, the asset leased out must remain and be treated as a commercial asset and exploited as such.

(4) This intention of the lessor referred to above has to be ascertained from the cumulative effect of all the terms of the lease and other material circumstances. "

Now, in the instant case, the Tribunal has found, after appreciating the material on record, that the assets in question, though given by the assessee on lease, did not cease to be commercial assets. The finding of the Tribunal in this behalf, as stated in its order in Misc. Civil Case No. 116 of 1982 is as follows:

" Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the assessee did not have any interest in the business or that the assessee had lost interest in the business and had only one interest, namely, that of receiving rental income. Our finding is that the assessee did have interest in the business and its equipment. "

In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal which is based on the material on record, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the income of the assessee-firm was assessable under the head" Business income ". In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was also right in granting continuance of registration to the assessee-firm.

For all these reasons, our answer to the first question referred to this court is that the income of the assessee-firm was assessable under the head" Business income " and not under the head " Income from other sources".Our answer to the second question referred to this court is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting continuance of registration to the assessee-firm. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of these references.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.