No.86, E2, Industrial Estate, of Income Tax, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai. [PAN AANFA 6447L] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. Department by : Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT सन ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 26072018 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement. : 01082018 आदे श / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are appeals of the assessee for the impugned assessment years, assailing the treatment of its income under the head ''income from house property'' instead of ''business''. 2. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of building, selling and leasing out Information Technology parks : 2 : ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 had given out on rent an IT Park called ''Ambit IT Park'' to various parties like CSS Corporation, Akshya Foods and Services Pvt. Ltd, Prizm payment services pvt. Ltd and Lopex Technologies. From the agreements with these parties, it was noted by the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee had received rental receipts as well as maintenance charges from lessees. Assessee had shown its income under the head ''income from business/profession''. However, ld. Assessing Officer noted that lessees had deducted tax u/s.194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') on the payments made to the assessee and hence as per the ld. Assessing Officer, the income had to be classified under the head ''income from house property''. Assessee did submit before the ld. Assessing Officer that the IT park was taken on lease by the companies not only for the space but also due to the host of supporting features like uninterrupted power supply, Air Conditioning, Voice and data communication network etc. However Ld. Assessing Officer took a view that the services provided by the assessee to the lessees, though it was on separate agreements, provision for such services were inseparable from the activity of renting out the property. As per the ld. Assessing Officer these services were rendered for getting higher rent from the lessees. Thus the whole of the amounts received by : 3 : ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 the assessee from the lessees, including the maintenance charge were brought to tax by the ld. Assessing Officer under the head '''income from house property'', for all the impugned assessment years. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Argument of the assessee was that though there were two separate agreements, one for renting out the premises and one for providing services object of the assessee was renting out the IT park alongwith various services. As per the assessee, ''Ambit IT park'' was approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology through its order dated 30.06.2009. Contention of the assessee was that it was engaged in the development of IT park and providing services alongside leasing out the infrastructural facility so as to exploit the property commercially. Thus, as per the assessee its income had to be considered under the head business/profession. Assessee also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd, (2013) 89 DTR 442 and that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, (2016) 386 ITR 500. : 4 : ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 4. However, ld.CIT(A) was not appreciative of the above contentions. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353, East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (197