ALIYARUKUNJU V., KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the income from lodging was rightly assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The Court noted the absence of evidence to prove that the assessee conducted lodging as a systematic business activity rather than an investment. It was generally observed that letting out buildings on a monthly rental basis constitutes 'Income from House Property', whereas daily rental basis suggests business activity. However, the records did not indicate the appellant was engaged in lodging business, nor was it proven by maintaining a guest register. Without systematic business activity, income from property must be assessed under the specifically provided head. Consequently, the assessee's contention was rejected. Regarding additions for unexplained expenditure and credits, the Court found no question of law arising from the Tribunal's findings, as the assessee failed to explain the investment, expenditure, or credits used for investments. Therefore, the appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Aliyarukunju, filed appeals challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. The appeals were heard by the High Court of Kerala. The primary dispute concerned the classification of income derived from lodging. The assessee claimed it as 'Business Income', while the Revenue contended it should be assessed as 'Income from House Property'. Additionally, the appeals addressed additions made by the Revenue for unexplained expenditure and credits across the three assessment years. The High Court reviewed the arguments presented by both the assessee and the Revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment of income from lodging under the head 'Income from House Property' and not under the head 'Business Income' as claimed by the assessee, turning on the nature of the activity and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: Relied on the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Punjab Gas Cylinder Ltd. [328 ITR 162] to argue that income from lodging should be treated as 'Business Income'. Revenue's Contention: Referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shambhu Investment P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [263 ITR 143], relied upon by the Tribunal, to support the classification of income as 'Income from House Property'. 2. Whether the additions made by the Revenue for unexplained expenditure and unexplained credits for the three assessment years were justified, and if any question of law arose from the Tribunal's findings on these matters.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran N
air, J
. The connected appeals are filed by the very same assesee challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. 2. We have heard learned counsel, Adv.Sri.Arun Raj, appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Revenue.
The common question raised for all the years is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment of income from lodging under the head 'Income from House Property' and not under the head 'Business Income' as claimed by the assessee. The counsel has relied on judgment of this Court reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Punjab Gas Cylinder Ltd. [328 ITR 162], where this Court held that income from lodging is 'Business Income'. However, the learned standing counsel referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Investment P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [263 ITR 143] relied on by the Tribunal and contended that the income returned by the appellant was rightly held to be 'Income from House Property'.
After hearing both sides, what we notice is there is nothing to indicate on record to prove that the appellant carried on lodging as a business activity and not as an investment. Generally, letting out of buildings on monthly rent should be treated as Income from House Property and not as a business income. However, if the building is let out on daily rental basis, certainly it should be treated as a business activity. However, there is nothing to indicate in the records that the appellant was engaged in lodging business, which is not proved even with register of guests maintained by the appellant. Unless an activity is systematically carried on in the nature of business, the department has to necessarily assess income from property under the head specifically provided for it. In the absence of any material on record, we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. Consequently, this ground is rejected. Next issue pertains to additions made for the 3 years under various heads of unexplained expenditure and unexplained credits. After hearing both sides and after going through the records, we do not find any question of law arising from the findings of the Tribunal on any of these issues. The reason for addition is that the appellant/assessee could not explain the investment or expenditure or credits used for investments. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/16/1
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
