Holding

Income received from leasing or letting out assets in the circumstances of these cases does not constitute business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered two appeals – one by Universal Plast Ltd. (UPL) and another by Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. – challenging High Court rulings that licence fees and rent received from leasing out a factory, godowns and machinery were not business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both appellants had ceased their manufacturing operations and entered into lease or licence agreements, receiving payments which they claimed as business income. The Court held that determining whether such receipts constitute business income is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring an assessment of the assessee's intention, the extent and duration of the letting, and whether the assets remained commercial assets. Applying the principles laid down in earlier cases, the Court found that the licences and rentals were merely exploitation of property by the owners, not the exploitation of business assets, and therefore the income was not assessable as business income. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Courts' decisions in favour of the Revenue.

Issues considered

Whether the licence fee received by Universal Plast Ltd. for leasing out its factory constitutes business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the rent received by Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. for letting out godowns and a factory with machinery constitutes business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 2(13), s. 256(1), s. 256(2), s. 28, s. 56

Subjects

Income TaxBusiness IncomeLicence FeeLeaseLetting Out AssetsSection 2(13)Section 28Section 56Section 256Profits and Gains of Business

Judgment

UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

MARCH 23, 1999

[S.P. BHARUCHA, S.S.M. QUADRI AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 2 (13) 28 and 56.

Income Tax-Profits and Gains of business-A Y 1977-78-Licence fee-
Receipt of-By leasing and letting out factory, godowns and machinery C
Business income or income from other sources-Tests to determine-Held
: Such licence fee received by assessee is not business income-Such letting
out also did not constitute business of assessee.

The Appellant-assessee (in 'UPL' case) set up a factory for
manufacturing of PVC sheet, and allied products. The assessee suffered D
losses for two years and, therefore, .it entered into a "leave and licence"
agreement with a manufacturer for a period of 7 years on payment of a
certain licence fee. The agreement also gave an option to the licensee for
renewal of the licence for a further period of 3 years. A question arose
whether the licence fee received by the assessee for the accounting year
relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 was the business income of the E
assessee. The High Court answered the question in the negative, in favour
of the Revenue and against the assessee.

The appellant assessee (in Guntur Merchants' case) stopped its business
of ginning cotton in 1964 for the sole reason of non-availability of cotton and
that it did not start the same even in 1977, there was nothing to show that F
the non-availability of cotton continued or could continue for such a long
period, the godowns of the assessee were let out to a tobacco merchant.
Moreover, the machinery remained idle for a very long period and the assessee
had separated the machinery from the godown and let out the pressing
factory to a metal pressing factory. A question arose whether the letting of
godowns and the factory with machinery did not constitute business of the G
assessee. The High Court answered the question in favour of the Revenue
and against the assessee. Hence these appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1.1. No precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether H
131
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease amount, rents or licence
fee) received by an assessee from leasing or letting out of assets would fall
under the head 'Profits and Gains of business or profession.' [138-H]

1.2. It is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined from the
point of view of a businessman in that business on the facts and in the
B circumstances of each case including true interpretation of the agreement
under which the assets are let out. (139-A]

1.3 Where all the assets of the bushiness are let out, the period for
which the assets are let out is a relevant factor to find out whether the
C intention of the assessee is to go out of business altogether or to come back
and restart the same. [139-B]

1.4. If only, or a few of, the business assets are let out temporarily
while the assessee is carrying out his other business activities then it is a
case of exploiting the business assets otherwise than employing them for his
D own use for making profit for that business, but if the business never started
or has started but ceased with no intention to be resumed, the assets also
will cease to be business assets and the transaction will be exploitation of
property by an owner thereof, but not exploitation of business assets.
. (139-C-D)

E Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
[1954) 26 ITR 765, followed.

Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax v. Shri Lakmsmi Silk Mills Ltd.,
(1951) 20 ITR 451; C!Tv. Calcutta National Bank Ltd, (1959) 37 ITR 171;
Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd, v. CIT, (1964) 51 ITR 353; New Seven Sugar and
F Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1969) 74 ITR 7 and C!Tv. Vikram Coton Mills
Ltd, (1988) 169 ITR 597, relied on.

2. The High Court in UPL, case after referring to the various clauses
in the "Leave and Licence" agreement concluded that "licensee exercising
G its vested right of option to purchase the licensed premises, the assessee
stands completely out in the cold". The clauses in tile agreement deal with
a situation arising out of the breach of the terms of the agreement entitling
the Licensor to terminate the Agreement on the expiry of the period of one
month from the service of the notice to the Licensee and also reserve his
right to determine the Agreement and retake the possession of the factory.
H These clauses do not whittle down the conclusion arrived at by the High
UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. v. C.I.T. [QUAD RI, J.] 133
Court with reference to the .-ights of the assessee-lessor coming to an end A
on the exercise of option by the lessee under the Agreement. Applying the
afore-mentioned tests, it is clear that the High Court has reached the correct
conclusion that the amount received by the assessee was not its business
income. [139-F; 141-F-G]

3. So far as 'Guntur Merchants 'case is concerned, the Agreement B
of Lease is not placed on record and there is no challenge that in recording
its findings the Tribunal and, in answering the question, the High Court has
ignored any vital clause of the Agreement. On the face of these finding, it
cannot but be concluded that the assessee had dismantled its business never
to return back to it. Applying the aforesaid principles it has to be held that C
the letting of godowns and the letting of the factory with machinery did not
constitute business of the assessee and, therefore, the amount received by
the assessee was not its busine~s income. [141-H; 142-A-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe~I No. 207 of 1995
Etc. D
From the Judgment and Order dated ~.2.92 of the Calcutta High Court
in l.T.R. No. 17of1991.

M.L. Verma, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Ms. Pumima Singh and Mrs. JanaH
Ramachandran for the Appellants. E
K.N. Shukla, Ms. Neera Gupta and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

QUADRI, J. Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1995 is filed by the assessee -
Universal Plast Limited - from the judgment and order of a Division Bench F
of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 17 of 1991 under
Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] passed on
February 6, 1992 [hereinafter referred to as 'UPL Case'].

Civil Appeals Nos. 1685-87 and 1700 of 1999 @ Special Leave Petition G
CC Nos. 10912-14 and 10984 of 1986, in which leave is granted, are preferred
by the assessee - The Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Company Limited,
Guntur - aggrieved by the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.22 of 1979, under Section
256(1) of the Act dated August 9, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as 'Guntur
Merchants' case']. H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A The points for consideration in these appeals are similar.

In UPL case, the question of law referred to the Calcutta High Court,
at the instance of the revenue, reads :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
B Tribunal was correct in law that the income received by the assessee
by leasing out the factory was business income?"

The following is one of the questions of law referred to the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, at the instance of the assessee in Guntur Merchants'
case :
c "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the letting of Godowns
at Guntur and Narsaraopet and the letting of the factory with machinery
at Narsaraopet and at Guntur did not constitute business of the
assessee?"
D
Both the Calcutta High Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High
Court answered the said questions in the negative, in favour of the Revenue
and against the assessee. The assessees are thus in appeal before us.

To resolve the controversy in these cases, we refer to the facts in the
E UPL case.

The appellant-assessee set up a factory styled as "UPL Factory" for
carrying on the business of manufacturing PVC sheets and allied products.
It appears that from the venture the assessee suffered losses for two years.
It then entered into an agreement styled as 'leave and licence' agreement
·F with Mis. Leatherite Industries Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'the
licensee'] for a period of7 years on March 13, 1977. The agreement contains
renewal clause giving option to the licensee to renew it for a further period
of three years. The licensee was to pay licence fee· of Rupees twenty four
lakhs and twenty per cent of the net profit of the factory in question with
G effect from April I, 1977. For the first three months which fell in the
accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee
received only licence fee of Rupees six lakhs as no profit was earned by the
licensee during the said period. That amount was shown by the assessee as
part of the business income. The Income Tax Officer did not accept that it
was business income and assessed the same as income from other sources.
H However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) accepted the plea of the
UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. v. C.l.T. [QUADRI, J.] 135
appellant-assessee that it was its business income and allowed the appeal on A
April 27, 1985. The Revenue unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the
Appellate Authority before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On an
application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Act, the High
Court directed the Tribunal to draw up statement of case and refer the
aforementioned question to it. On February 6, 1992 the High Court answered
the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, B
as noted above.

Mr. M.L.Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, ha.5
contended that underJhe 'leave and licence' agreement, the assessee exploited
the business assets; the intention in receiving a share in the profit of the C
business as part of the consideration and in ensuring that the amounts due by
the Company to the creditors are paid regularly was to keep the business
running so that it might continue the business after the expiry of the lease
period. He invited our attention to .various clauses of the Agreement and
pointed out that the High Court has not considered Clauses 15 and 16 which
unmistakably point out that the Agreement was only a temporary measure D
and the intention of the assessee was to go back to the factory. Therefore,
submitted the learned counsel, the High Court had erred in not treating the
amount in question as business income.

Mr. K.N. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, supported
the judgments under appeal in these cases. E
The question whether the amount earned by an assessee by leasing out
the assets of the business would be an income from business carried on by
it, has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court as well as by
various High Courts and it would be useful to refer to the judgments of this F
Court bearing on the issue.

In Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi
Silk Mills Limited, (1951) 20 I.T.R. 451, the assessee-company was carrying
on the business of manufacturing silk cloth and dyeing silk yarn. Due to lack
of supply of silk yarn during the relevant period while keeping idle other G
plant and machinery, it let out dyeing plant for five months. The question
which came up for consideration before this Court was whether the rent
received from letting out the dyeing plant would fall under the head "Income
from business" or "income from other sources". If it was "Income from
business", it would have been chargeable to excess profits tax; if not, the
liability would not arise. Mahajan, J., speaking for the Court, observed that H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A no general principle could be laid down which was applicable to all cases and
each case had to be decided on its own circumstances. It was hdd that it was
part of the nonnal activities of the assessee's business to earn money by
making use of its machinery by either employing it in its own manufacturing
concern or temporarily letting it to others for making profi~ for that business
B when for the time being it could not itself run it and for that reason the dyeing
plant had not ceased to be a commercial asset of the assessee, so the sum
representing the rent for five months received from the lessee by the assessee
was income from business and was chargeable to excess profits tax.

In Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits
C Tax, (1954) 26 I.T.R. 765, a Constitution Bench of this Court considered a
similar question which als1> arose under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
In that case, the assessee-finn was carrying on manufacturing business. A
Public Limited Company was incorporated ~o take over the business from
the assessee-finn. The company purchased the building of the assessee-firm
and took over from it the plant and machinery on lease at an annual rent. One
D of the questions that fell for consideration there was whether the lease
money obtained by the assessee from the company could be legally treated
as business profit liable to excess profits tax. Distinguishing Shri Lakshmi
Silk Mills case (supra), it was pointed out that only a part of the business of
the assessee therein, namely dyeing silk yarn, was temporarily stopped owing
E to difficulty in obtaining silk yarn on account of war so that part of the
assets did not cease to be commercial asset of that business and accordingly,
the income from the assets would be the profit of the business irrespective
of the manner in which that asset was exploited by the company. Noticing
the facts in the case before the Court that the assessee had already sold land
and building to the Company; it was not having any manufacturing, trading or
F commercial activity; and Jet out the plant and machinery on an annual rent
of Rupees forty thousand and applying the common sense principle to the
facts, this Court found that the transaction of lease was quite apart from the
ordinary bu~iness activity of the company, so it was impossible to hold that
the letting out of the plant and machinery etc. was at all a business operation
G when its nonnal business ·activity had come to a close.

In Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta National
Bank Limited, (1959) 37 I.T.R. 171, the case arose under the Excess Profits
Tax Act. The assessee was a banking company. It owned a six-storeyed
building of which only a part was under its occupation and the rest was let
H out to tenants. The question was whether the rent received from the tenants
UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. v. C.I. T. [QUADRI, J.] 137
of the building was the business income of the company. The majority opinion A
was that realisation of rental income of the assessee was in the course of its
business being in prosecution of one of its objects in its memorandum and
was liable to be included in its business profits and was assessable to excess
profits tax. That conclusion was reached on the premise that the term 'business'
as defined in that Act was wider than the definition of that term under the B
Income Tax Act. The minority, however, took a contrary view.

In Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Bombay
City-JI, (1964) 51 I.T.R.353, the assessee constructed a building, fitted it up
with furniture and fixtures and let it out on lease fully equipped and furnished
for the purpose of running a hotel. The lease amount provided separately for C .
running of the building and hire charges for furniture and fixtures. The
question that fell for consideration was whether the rent income was business
income taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1922? It was held that as the
assessee never carried on any business of a hotel in the premises let out or
otherwise at all and there was nothing to show that it intended to carry on D
a hotel business itse_lf in the same building, the letting of the building did not
amount to the carrying on of a business, so the income under the lease could
not be assessed as income from business. The Constitution Bench formulated
the principle thus :

"Whether a particular letting is business, has to be decided in the E
circumstances of each case. Each case has to be looked at from the
businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the
doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner .. ".

In New Sevan Sugar and Gur Refining Co.Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Calcutta, (1969) 74 I.T.R.7, the appellant-company was carrying p
on business of crushing sugarcane and gur refining. The building, machinery
and plant of the factory mill were leased out initially for a period of five years
with three options to renew for similar periods on the part of the lessee. The
assessee had, however, the option to terminate the lease after first two years
which option was not exercised. The question was whether the income which
arose to the assessee for the Assessment Year 1955-56 from the lease was G
assessable as income from business or income from other sources? It was
held, on interpretation of the terms of the lease deed, that the intention of the
appel.lant-~sessee was to part with the machinery of the factory and the
premises with the obvious purpose of earning rental income and not to treat
the factory and the machinery as commercial asset during the subsistence of H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A the lease; the intention of the appellant was found to go out of business
altogether, therefore the income was not assessable as business income.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v. Vikrani Cotton Mills Ltd,
{1988) 1691.T.R.597 is again a case arising under the Income Tax Act, 1922.
One of the creditors filed a petition in the High Court for winding up. The
B Industrial Financial Corporation took ·possession of fixed assets under an
English mortgage of those assets. The assessee company had gone into
losses and had stopped its manufacturing activity. Under the scheme evolved
by the High Court under the Companies Act, the business assets were let out
for ten years with an option for renewal for another ten years. The management
C of the company was transferred to a Board of Trustees approved by the High
Court. The question which fell for determination was whether the rental
....
income was assessable in the relevant assessment years as business income?
The findings of the Tribunal were that on account of financial crisis, the
company found it advantageous to let out the machinery on hire for a
temporary period and the company was able to liquidate its liability at the end
D of the lease period and regained possession of its assets; the company did
not sell or otherwise dispose of its assets; there was nothing on record to
show that the company was formed to let out plant and machinery on hire.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the maintenance of the assets meant
that the Company had an intention to re-start the business and that the
E intention of the Company in letting out its assets was to exploit the commercial
assets for the purpose of its business and therefore the rental income was
assessable as business income. On reference, that conclusion was upheld by -,.
the High Court. On appeal to this Court, while affirming the decision of the
High Court, it was noted that all relevant facts were correctly considered from
the standpoint of an ordinary prudent businessman by the Tribunal and it
F was also pointed out that the stoppage of the business by the company was
a temporary suspension of business for a temporary period with the object
of tiding over the crisis condition and there was never any act indicating that
the company intended to stop the business in future.

In the light of the above discussion, the propositions may be
G summarised as follow:

(I) no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income
(referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease amount, rents licence
. fee) received by an assessee from leasing or letting out of assets
would fall under the head 'Profits and Gains of business or
H profession';
UNIVERSAL PLA~T LTD. v. C.I.T. [QUADRI, J.] 139
(2) it is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be determined A
from the point of view of a businessman in that business on the
facts and in the circumstances of each case including true
interpretation of the agreement under which the assets are let
out;
(3) where all the assets of the business are let out, the period for B
which the assets are let out is a relevant factor to find out
whether the intention of the assessee is to go out of business
altogether or to come back and restart the same.

(4) if only or a few of the business assets are let out temporarily
while the assessee is carrying out his other business activities c
then it is a case of exploiting the business assets otherwise than
employing them for his own use for making profit for that
business; but if the business never started or has started but
ceased with no intention to. be resumed, the assets also will
cease to be business assets and the transaction will only be
exploitation of property by an owner thereof, but not exploitation D
j
of business assets.

Now adverting to the facts of UPL case, the High Court referred to the
findings of the Tribunal that the leasing out of the factory was not a sequel
to the assesee's decision to go out of the business in respect of the subject E
factory and that it was just a make-shift transient alternative means of
commercial exploitation of the commercial assets, so income from such letting
could not be treated as the fruits of ownership simplicitor of the asset. The
High Court also referred to various clauses in the Agreement, particularly
Clauses l, 2, 4, 7, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and concluded that "licensee exercising
its vested right of option to purchase the licenced premises, the assessee F
stands completely out in the cold". The High Court recorded the following
findings :

"Therefore, it can very well be presumed that at the time the licence
agreement was entered into, the intention of the ultimate outright sell G
out was already there. The assessee was already committed to the
licensee for such a sell-out at licensee's pleasure and there is no
means of the assessee falling back from that commitment. Therefore,
it can very reasonably be inferred that the assessee in the case
decided to go out of business as far as this particular factory was
concerned .. H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A The lease agreement is in fact a veiled agreement for lease-cum-
sale .... We are of the opinion that the licensing is not meant to be a ·
temporary stop gap exploitation of commercial assets. It could not be
in the contemplation of the assessee at the time it entered into the
licence agreement, to retain the assets any more as a commercial
asset."
B
It was contended by Mr. Verma that the High Court did not consider
Clauses 2(ii)(c), 3(v), 4, 7 15 and 16 of the Agreement. The clauses read
thus :

"2(ii)(c). The 25% of the net profit, if any, within 60 days of the
c accounts of licensee being adopted and passed by the Shareholders.

3. The licensee hereby agrees and covenants: (v) to permit the licensor
on reasonable previous notice in writing to enter the UPL factory
premises and inspect the premises, plants, machinery etc. with or
without their agent, inspector, engineer and other personnel and
D provide all necessary facilities to them;

4. The Licensee shall use the said UPL factory for the purpose of
business of manufacturing; provided always that the Licensor shall
not in any way be responsible for any debt or responsibility incurred
by the Licensee during the subsistence of this Agreement including
E that in respect of expenses, such as working expenses, rates and taxes
in respect of property, except of capital nature insurance premia~
interest on all advances, depreciation on newly acquired assets, bonus
and gratuity to employees nor for arty liability in respect of Sales
Tax or tax on incomes, profits and gains made by the Licensee so far
F as they relate to the Licensee's part of the income from the UPL
factory and the Licensee hereby indemnified the Licensor against all
such debts, liabilities, costs, charges and expenses in respect thereof.

7. The Licensee shall be liable for payment of retrenchment/
retirement compensation, if any, to the workmen in case such
G workmen are retrenched or retired by the Licensee. However, the
Licensor shall be liable for payment of retrenchment/retirement
compensation, if any, in case of workmen retrenched or retired after
the termination of the licence.

PROVIDED, however, that on the termination of the licence, the
H Licensee shall be liable for any retrenchment compensation payable
UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. v. C.I.T. [QUADRI, J.] 141

to workmen on account of removal by them of any plant and machinery A
acquired and installed by the Licensee.

15. In the event of the Licensee committing a breach of any of. the
terms of this Agreement or making default in payment as
provided in clause 2(ii) of any two quarterly instalments, the
Licensor shall be entitled to terminate this agreement upon the B
expiry of the period of one month from the service of notice
in writing by the Licensor to the Licensee to remove the breach
or to make payment, as the case may be, if the Licensee fail to
remove the breach or to make payment, as the case may be,
within the said period. ·
c
16. If the Licensee pass a resolution for winding up or are ordered
to be wound up (except for the purpose of amalgamation or
reconstruction) or if the Licensee shall do or cause to be done
or permit or suffer any act or thing whereby the Licensor's
right in the UPL factory and in the building, plant, machinery D
and equipment therein may be prejudiced or put in jeopardy, the
Licensor may without any Il{)tice determine this Agreement and
the licence and it shall thereupon be lawful for the Licensor to
enter upon and retake possession of the UPL factory.

From a plain reading of the clauses noted above, what is clear is that E
they deal with a situation arising out of the breach of the terms of the
Agreement entitling the Licensor to terminate the Agreement on the expiry
of the period of one month from the service of the notice to the Licensee.
Clause 16 deals with a situation of the Licensee being wound up in which
situation the Licensor reserved his right to determine the Agreement and
retake the possession of the factory. These clauses do not whittle down the F
conclusion arrived at by the High Court with reference to the rights of the
assessee-lessor coming to an end on the exercise of option by the lessee
under clause 19 of the Agreement. Applying the afore-mentioned tests, we
are clear in our mind that the High Court has reached the correct conclusion
which does not warrant interference. G

So far as Guntur Merchants' case is concerned, the Agreement of
Lease is not placed on record and there is no challenge that in recording its
findings the Tribunal and in answering the question the High Court has
ignored any vital clause of the Agreement. The Tribunal recorded the findings
as follows : H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A "The assessee stopped its business of ginning cotton in 1964 for the
sole reason of non- availability of cotton and that it did not start the
same even in 1977; there was nothing to show that the non-availability
of cotton continued or could continue for -such a long period; the
godowns of the assessee were let out to a tobacco merchant and the
assessee could not be said to be carrying on the business of cotton
B with godowns so let out; the assessee could be said to have only
exercised his right as an owner of the property in the leasing out its
properties; the machinery remained idle for a very long period and
the assessee had separated the ma~hinery from the godown and let
out the pressing factory to a metal pressing factory; the assessee did
c not continue its business for an unusual long time and give out its
godown to different business than the one which the assessee was
carrying on; the conduct of the assessee did not support that it was
using the godown and machinery as business asset and not as the
owner of the property." '

D On considering these findings, the High Court answered the question
referred to it in favour of the Rev~nue. On the face of these findings, it
cannot but be concluded that the assessee had dismantled its business never
to return back to it. Applying the aforesaid principles, it has to be held that
the answer recorded .by the High Court to the question referred to it is
E correct in law.

In the result, we hold that both the High Courts were right in answering
the questions referred to them, in favour of the Revenue and agairist the
assessee. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs.

F
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.

\