IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 ITA.No. 1354 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.328/C/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- M/S.JOSEPH GEORGE & CO., SAYANNA, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLLAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NOS.1659, 1660 &1661 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.1354,1659,1660 & 1661 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Only two issues arise from the three questions raised in the connected appeals filed by the assessee. The first issue is whether the income received from building under the name "Konny Building"is business income or not. Counsel contended that assessee is engaged in letting out of rooms in the lodging house and the Konny Building is one rented out to the Bank on long term lease. It is conceded that income from the lodging building is treated as business income and the appellant has no grievance against the same. However, we are unable to accept appellant's contention that rental income from Konny Building also should be treated as business income because letting out building on long term lease is not a business activity at all. While lodging is business, letting out of building to the Bank cannot be treated as business. It is to be assessed as income from property. We, therefore, uphold the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the 2 confirmation of assessment on the income from Konny Building. The next issue i.e. liability for interest under Section 234A and 234B is covered by Single Bench decision of this court in SEAPEARL ENTERPRISES V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ((2006) 204 CTR 81). It is conceded that a Full Bench of the Punjab and Hariyana High Court took the same view in the decision in PARKASH AGRO INDUSTRIES V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ((2009) 316 ITR 149). We do not find any ground to deviate from the view taken by the Single Judge of this court which found acceptance with the Full Bench of the Punjab and Hariyana High Court. Consequently we dismiss all the appeals filed by the assessee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms