2004 (7) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

(i) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the residential properties let out to employees of sister concerns are to be treated as business assets and depreciation allowed? and (ii) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that income from letting out of property should be treated as business income in the hands of the assessee? - Held that, Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the income from the property let out by the respondent/assessee to the employees of the sister concern as an income from business and allowing depreciation thereon, and hold that the income from the property let out to the employees of the subsidiary company should be treated as an income from house property under section 22, instead of assessing the property in question as commercial assets and charging the same under section 28, as rightly contended by the appellant/Revenue. Revenue s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether residential properties let out to employees of sister concerns are to be treated as business assets and depreciation allowed?
2. Whether income from letting out of property should be treated as business income in the hands of the assessee?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of residential properties owned by the assessee and let out to employees of sister concerns. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal initially held that these properties should be considered as business assets and allowed depreciation. The appellant/Revenue assessed the properties under section 22 of the Income-tax Act as income from house property. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this assessment, but the Tribunal set it aside, treating the rental income as profits and gains of business under section 28 of the Act.

2. The appellant/Revenue contended that since the assessee was the owner of the properties and they were let out to employees of sister concerns, the income should be assessed under section 22 as income from house property, not under section 28 as business income. On the other hand, the respondent/assessee argued that letting the properties to employees of sister concerns was equivalent to letting them to the assessee itself, as the holding company. They relied on a decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court to support their position.

3. The High Court analyzed sections 22 and 28 of the Income-tax Act. Section 22 deals with income from house property, exempting properties occupied for business purposes from taxation under this head. To qualify for this exemption, the property must be directly occupied for business or profession, with profits chargeable to income tax. The term "occupy" has been interpreted to include occupation by employees necessary for business duties. In this case, the properties were not directly occupied by the assessee for business purposes.

4. The Court considered whether the letting of properties to employees of sister concerns could be construed as occupation by the assessee for business purposes. It distinguished the facts from the precedent cited by the respondent/assessee, emphasizing that the employees in question were not directly related to the assessee. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes based on legislative intent and held that the Tribunal erred in treating the rental income as business income, concluding that it should be considered income from house property under section 22.

5. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant/Revenue, holding that the income from properties let out to employees of sister concerns should be treated as income from house property under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the Tribunal's decision to treat it as business income under section 28. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant/Revenue.