Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bedi Techno Projects (P.) Ltd.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The assesses filed its return of income for the assessment year 1990-91. The assessee had, inter alia, shown income as under:

(i) Income from rent Rs. 2,34,610 (ii) Income from interest Rs. 1,76,768 (iii) Profit on sale of plot Rs. 15,000

The assessee claimed various expenses like salary to staff, remuneration to the directors and depreciation on let-out property.

The Assessing Officer held that the rental income was assessable as income from property. The interest income had to be assessed as income from other sources. The expenditure was admissible only to the extent it was incurred to earn the interest. Profit on sale of plot was held as income from "capital gain". Thus, the taxable income was fixed at Rs. 3,59,470.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal and claimed that the additions had been wrongly made. The appeal was accepted. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal having been dismissed, it has approached this court through this appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Mr. R.P. Sawhney, counsel for the Revenue, contends that the assessee was not entitled to claim that the income by way of rent, interest and profit on sale of plot was income from business. Is it so ?

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the assessee''s business was "of purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise acquire land, building and other immovable properties of any type or description and rights connected with land and turn the same into account in any manner whatsoever". Thus, the assessee''s income was from sale or leasing out of property, etc. In this situation, the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have come to a firm finding that the income of the assessed was from business.

Mr. Sawhney contends that the claim for depreciation could not have been allowed. The Commissioner had erred in accepting the assessee''s claim on the total property.

The contention is misconceived. Even the question framed by the Revenue in its petition of appeal shows that the depreciation had been claimed "on the let-out property" only.

Mr. Sawhnuy submits that the Tribunal has erred while interpreting the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, .

In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the contention is not tenable. In any event, the view as expressed by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of facts as established on the record.

No substantial question of law arises. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine.