Commercial exploitation of industrial assets can yield business income, supporting deductions and nullifying penalty and revision based on contrary classification.

Leasing income from a factory previously run as an industrial business was treated as business income because the asset was commercially exploited with an apparent intention to revive the business, not permanently divest it. On that basis, the related expenses were allowed as business deductions. The penalty under section 221(1) also fell away because it rested on the earlier adverse characterisation of the income. The revision under section 263 was set aside since it was built on the same failed premise that the lease receipts were assessable under other sources.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the income from leasing the factory was taxable as business income or income from other sources; (ii) whether the disallowance of expenses claimed against that income was justified; (iii) whether the penalty levied under section 221(1) survived; and (iv) whether the Commissioner's revision under section 263 disallowing set-off of carried forward depreciation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the income from leasing the factory was taxable as business income or income from other sources.

Analysis: The factory had been run for several years and was leased only after the business became unprofitable. The lease terms, the surrounding circumstances, and the later conduct showed an intention to revive the business and treat the factory as a commercial asset rather than to part with it permanently. The leasing was therefore viewed as a mode of commercial exploitation of the asset.

Conclusion: The income from the lease was held to be business income and not income from other sources, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of expenses claimed against that income was justified.

Analysis: Once the lease receipts were held to be business income, the related expenditure claimed by the assessee could not be denied on the footing adopted by the lower authorities. The expenses in question were tied to the business computation and were admissible on that basis.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the expenses was set aside and the expenses were directed to be allowed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty levied under section 221(1) survived.

Analysis: The penalty had been sustained only because the quantum assessment had gone against the assessee. Once the underlying assessment was altered in the assessee's favour and the income was treated as business income, the foundation for the penalty ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 221(1) was cancelled, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the Commissioner's revision under section 263 disallowing set-off of carried forward depreciation was sustainable.

Analysis: The revisional direction proceeded on the footing that the income was assessable under other sources. Since that premise failed after the quantum finding was reversed, the revisional order lost its basis and could not stand.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 263 was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the character of the lease receipts, the related deductions, the penalty, and the revisional disallowance, with all three appeals allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Income from leasing a previously run industrial asset remains business income where the asset is commercially exploited with an intention to revive or continue the business, and consequential penalty or revision based on a contrary classification cannot survive.

---