2016 (7) TMI 705 - HC - Income Tax

Lease income out of leasing out commercial property - business income or income from house property - Held that - It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal on appeal by the Revenue that perusal of the memorandum of understanding dated August 27, 2002 between the assessee and the lessee, i.e., M/s Pizza Hut showed that the property in question was given for use for a period of 12 years which was renewable for a further period of 12 years. It was nowhere shown that the intention to let out was only for a temporary period. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not held to be justified in concluding that the letting out was to be taken as commercial exploitation of the property. The intention of the assessee was to enjoy rental income from the letting out of the property which was rightly treated as income from house property by the Assessing Officer. Thus the view adopted by the Tribunal is a plausible view based on appreciation of material on record and the relevant case law on the point.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of lease income as income from house property or business income.

Analysis:
The appellant-assessee appealed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law revolved around whether the lease income from leasing out commercial property should be treated as income from house property or business income. The appellant, a company running a hotel, leased a portion of its property to a concern running a Pizza Hut restaurant. The Assessing Officer treated the income as income from house property, while the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by the Revenue, leading to the current appeal.

The Tribunal examined the memorandum of understanding between the appellant and the lessee, Pizza Hut, which indicated a lease period of 12 years renewable for another 12 years. The Tribunal concluded that the intention was to enjoy rental income, not temporary commercial exploitation. Citing the Anand Rubber and Plastics P. Ltd. case, the Tribunal differentiated the facts, asserting that the letting out was not temporary. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the income as "Income from house property."

In the case of Anand Rubber and Plastics P. Ltd., the court found that temporary leasing for commercial purposes resulted in business income. However, in the present case, the long-term lease agreement indicated the intention to earn rental income, justifying the treatment as income from house property. The Tribunal distinguished this case from previous judgments cited by the appellant's counsel, emphasizing the need to assess each case based on its unique facts.

The Tribunal's decision was deemed plausible, considering the evidence and relevant case law. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant-assessee. The substantial question of law was answered against the appellant, affirming the Tribunal's decision to treat the income as "Income from house property."