Court reclassifies factory building income as 'Other Sources' not 'Business Profits'. Department prevails.

The court determined that income from letting out a factory building should be classified as 'Income from other sources' rather than 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. The court found that the letting out did not involve commercial exploitation of the asset, leading to the income being categorized as from "Other sources". The decision favored the Department over the assessee, with no costs awarded due to the lack of representation for the assessee.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of whether income arising from letting out a factory building should be assessed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or under the head 'Income from other sources'.

Summary:
For the assessment year 1968-69, the issue arose regarding the classification of income arising from the letting out of a factory building. The assessee claimed that the income should be treated as arising from the business of exploiting a commercial asset, while the tax authorities assessed it as 'Income from other sources'. The Tribunal concluded that the income from the lease should be assessed under the head "Business", leading to the reference to the High Court.

The relevant section, namely, s. 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides guidelines for classifying income from letting out assets. The court referred to previous judgments to analyze the distinction between income from business and income from letting out property. The test applied in such cases is whether the income arises from the exploitation of a commercial asset or merely from letting out the property for rent.

In the present case, the court found no evidence to suggest that the letting out of the factory was a commercial exploitation of the asset. Without any commercial motivation in the letting out, the income was deemed to be from "Other sources". The court referred to previous judgments and held that the income in this case should be treated as income from "Other sources".

Therefore, the court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Department and against the assessee, with no order as to costs due to the absence of representation for the assessee.

---