Case: Raj Dadarkar Associates  Vs. Acit -Cc-46

factor. Matter has to be examined on the facts of each case as held in Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. case. Even otherwise, the object clause which is contained in the partnership firm is to take the premises on rent and to sub-let. In the present case, reading of the object clause would bring out two discernible facts, which are as follows:(a) The appellant which is a partnership firm is to take the premises on rent and to sub-let those premises. Thus, the business activity is of taking the premises on rent and sub-letting them.In the instant case, by legal fiction contained in Section 27(iiib) of the Act, the appellant is treated as "deemed owner".(b) The aforesaid clause also mentions that partnership firm may take any other business as may be mutually agreed upon by the partners.17. In the instant case, therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business by which it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated as income from the business. Before us, apart from relying upon the aforesaid clause in the partnership deed to show its objective, the learned counsel for the appellant has not produced or referred to any material. On the other hand, we find that ITAT had specifically adverted to this issue and recorded the findings on this aspect in the following manner:"26. ...On this issue facts available on record are that the assessee let out shops/stalls to various occupants on a monthly rent. The assessee collected charges for minor repairs, maintenance, water and electricity. As per the terms of allotment by the BMC, the assessee was bound to incur all these expenses. The assessee, in turn, collected extra money from the allottees. The assessee collected 20% of monthly rent as service charges. Such service charges were also used for providing services like watch and ward, electricity, water etc. This in our opinion was inseparable from basic charges of rent. The assessee has made bifurcation of the receipt from the, occupiers of the shops/stalls as rent and service charges. As rightly held by the Assessing Officer, decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd., 263 ITR 143 will apply. The assessee has not established that he was engaged in any systematic or organized activity of providing service to the occupiers of the shops/stalls so as to constitute the receipts from them as business income. In our opinion, the assessee received income by letting out shops/stalls; and therefore, the same has to be held as income from house property."18. The ITAT being the last forum insofar as factual determination is concerned, these findings have attained finality. In any case, as mentioned above, the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue on this aspect and did not make any efforts to show as to how the aforesaid findings were perverse. It was for the appellant to produce sufficient material on record to show that its entire income or substantial income was from letting out of the property which was the principal business activity of the appellant. No such effort was made.19. Reliance placed by the appellant on the judgments of this Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. would be of no avail. In Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. where one of us (Sikri, J.) was a part of the Bench found that the entire income of the appellant was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. On those facts, this Court came to the conclusion that judgment of this Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 was applicable and the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 was held to be distinguishable. In the present case, we find that situation is just the reverse. The judgment in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. which would be applicable which is discussed in para 8 of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. case and the reproduction thereof would bring home the point we are canvassing:"8. With this background, we first refer to the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. case [East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which were developed by it, had been rented out and income was derived from the renting of the said shops and stalls. In those facts, the question which arose for consideration was: whether the rental income that is received was to be treated as income from the house property or the income from the business? This Court while holding that the income shall be treated as income from the house property, rested its decision in the context of the main objective of the company and took note of the fact that letting out of the property was not the object of the company at all. The Court was therefore, of the opinion that the character of that income which was from the house property had not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up properties."20. In Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd., fact situation was identical to the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and for this reason, Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. followed Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., which is held to be inapplicable in the instant case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties in the light of legal provisions contained in the Act. We may remark at the outset that it is not in dispute that having regard to the terms and conditions on which the leasehold rights were taken by the appellant in auction, constructed the market area thereupon and gave the same to various persons onbasis, the appellant would be treated as deemed owner of these premises in terms of Section 27(iiib) of thethe present case, the appellant is held to be "deemed owner" of the property in question by virtue of Section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee.The ITAT being the last forum insofar as factual determination is concerned, these findings have attained finality. In any case, as mentioned above, the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue on this aspect and did not make any efforts to show as to how the aforesaid findings were perverse. It was for the appellant to produce sufficient material on record to show that its entire income or substantial income was from letting out of the property which was the principal business activity of the appellant. No such effort was made.19. Reliance placed by the appellant on the judgments of this Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. would be of no avail. In Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. where one of us (Sikri, J.) was a part of the Bench found that the entire income of the appellant was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. On those facts, this Court came to the conclusion that judgment of this Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362     was applicable and the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49     was held to be distinguishable. In the present case, we find that situation is just the reverse. The judgment in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. which would be applicable which is discussed in para 8 of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. case and the reproduction thereof would bring home the point we areWith this background, we first refer to the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. case [East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which were developed by it, had been rented out and income was derived from the renting of the said shops and stalls. In those facts, the question which arose for consideration was: whether the rental income that is received was to be treated as income from the house property or the income from the business? This Court while holding that the income shall be treated as income from the house property, rested its decision in the context of the main objective of the company and took note of the fact that letting out of the property was not the object of the company at all. The Court was therefore, of the opinion that the character of that income which was from the house property had not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up properties.In Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd., fact situation was identical to the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and for this reason, Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. followed Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., which is held to be inapplicable in the instant case.