2012 (8) TMI 677 - AT - Income Tax

Operational income received from lessee - business income OR house property ? - Held that - The prime object of the assessee under the said agreement was to let out the portion of the said property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture and fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being paid month by month in addition to the security free advance covering the entire cost of the said immovable property, thus the income derived from the said property is an income from property and should be assessed as such - There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has exploited the IT Complex as a business venture. The object in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the assessee by itself cannot be an indicated to determine the nature and character of income. there is clear intention of the assessee to lease out the property for an initial period of 9 years and to extend the lease period further after expiry of the initial lease period, it cannot be said that the assessee has exploited the commercial asset temporarily. In view of the leasing out of the property for a long period the income has to be classified as income from house property. Therefore,no infirmity in the order of the lower authority - aginst assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of lease rental income: Whether it should be assessed as "income from business" or "income from house property."

Detailed Analysis:

Classification of Lease Rental Income:
The core issue in this case is whether the lease rental income received by the assessee should be classified as "income from business" or "income from house property."

Facts and Background:
The Government of West Bengal aimed to promote Information Technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITES) in the state. HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Pvt. Ltd. (HDPI) approached the government to establish a group processing center in Kolkata. Consequently, the government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the assessee for designing and constructing a custom-built IT facility of 1,80,000 sq.ft. and leasing it to HDPI. The government transferred land to the assessee under a long-term lease for 99 years for a total one-time lease rental of Rs. 129.5 lakhs. The assessee constructed the IT complex and entered into a lease agreement with HDPI, leasing the building and land for a monthly rental of Rs. 21.75 per sq.ft., resulting in lease rent of Rs. 1,65,75,441/- for the relevant year.

Assessment Proceedings:
The assessee declared the lease rent as "income from business" in its return. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the lease rent as "income from house property," reasoning that the lease agreement did not involve any business activity or provision of technical services by the assessee.

CIT(A) Proceedings:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the lease agreement was purely for rental purposes without any provision for services. The CIT(A) observed that the lease agreement granted HDPI full rights, including sub-leasing, and lacked clauses for services provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the income earned by the assessee as rental should be classified as "income from house property."

Arguments by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the MoU, lease deed, and other documents demonstrated that the government did not intend for the assessee to become a mere owner of house property. The assessee contended that its core business competence in developing IT infrastructure was the reason for the business opportunity. The assessee highlighted various amenities and facilities provided to HDPI, arguing that these should classify the income as "profits and gains of business" under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Arguments by the Department:
The Department argued that the development of the IT complex was never intended as a business venture but rather as a means to earn rental income. The Department emphasized that the lease period of 9 years indicated the assessee's intent to earn rental income rather than engage in business activities.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal noted that there is no straightforward formula to classify income as "business income" or "house property income." It must be decided based on the facts of each case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee developed the IT complex exclusively for HDPI's use on a rental basis, with no provision for services in the lease agreement. The Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee providing additional services or incurring expenses for amenities. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim that the IT infrastructure facility met the criteria of an "industrial park" under section 80IA(4), as the assessee was neither notified as an industrial park nor maintaining it.

Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which upheld the classification of income from letting out property as "income from house property." The Tribunal also cited the ITAT Hyderabad Bench's decision in B. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. ITO, where leasing out property for a long period was classified as "income from house property."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lease rental income should be treated as "income from house property" as the assessee earned income like an owner of property without exploiting it as a business asset. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the court on 28-6-2012.