FACTS
The assessee owns property on which it is running the hospitality business. The assessee had entered into agreements with various companies for accommodating their employees in assessee’s guest rooms and received rental receipts charged on daily basis for the same. Such incomes had been accepted up to assessment year 2006- 07 as ‘income from business’.
For relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer (AO) opined that the assessee had let out the property and did not have any license to run the catering part and on enquiry it was found out that the assessee was not running a kitchen but providing food by outsourcing, on cost to cost basis. He, accordingly, held that the income received by the assessee should be brought to tax as ‘income from house property’.
The AO also noted that various companies deducted tax at source u/s. 194-I and, consequently, the rentals received were to be assessed as ‘income from house property’. The AO also opined that in case assessee’s incomes were to be assessed as ‘business income’, the expenditure could not be allowed fully. Therefore, he had substantially disallowed the amounts on a protective basis.
The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
On second appeal before the Tribunal.
HELD
There is no dispute with reference to certain facts as follows; (i) assessee owns the property on which it is running the hospitality business; (ii) assessee has not let out property per se but has entered into agreement for providing accommodation to the software engineers of various companies in its property; (iii) the agreement indicates that the charges are payable on occupancy basis on per day basis without any food, except providing coffee and tea and light snacks; (iv) the receipts which are received are for occupancy only of the seven rooms assessee is owning.
There is no letting out of any property as such, but the amounts were paid by the said companies as rent for occupation of the property. It is also not in dispute that in earlier years, assessee’s receipts were accepted under the head ‘business’. Moreover, assessee’s memorandum of association indicates that main object of the company is to carry on the business of hotels, resorts, boarding, lodges, guest houses, etc.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 has held that where in terms of Memorandum of Association, main object of the assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out the same, the said income is to be brought to tax as ‘income from business’ and not as ‘income from house property’. In assessee’s case, assessee has not let out any property but has allowed the occupancy of its properties charged on a daily rental basis and thus AO’s contention that income has to be assessed under ‘house property’ has no basis at all.
Provisions of section 194-I may be applied for any rental income paid, but as seen from the definition of ‘rent’ in section 194-I, rent includes any payment by whatever name called, for use of buildings including factory buildings, equipment, furniture or fittings. Even if machinery was leased, the consequent rent comes under the definition of section 194-I. But machinery lease cannot be considered under ‘income from house property’. Thus AO’s opinion that since TDS made under section 194-I, incomes are to be assessed under head ‘income from house property’ cannot be accepted.
Therefore, both on facts of the case and also on law, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case, receipts of the assessee cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘house property’. The same is to be assessed under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’ only. Thus the issue of head of income to be assessed is decided in favour of assessee and the issue of allowance of expenditure is restored to the file of AO for fresh consideration.