JANKAR MECHANICAL WORKS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

4.After considering the submission of the assessee and the order of the AO, the FAA held that the list of the machinery stated to be installed in the premises, as appearing in the agreement, were not signed by the lessee, that it was not evident that machinery was forming an integral part of the premises given only, that it could not be held that machinery was given to the lessee and that the consideration was received for the lease of the machinery, that the services agreed to be provided by the assessee were normal security and upkeep services which could not alter the character of the agreement and taxability of income from house property to business income,that it was a simple case of hiring out the property by the assessee,that the income from the same was assessable as house property income.Finally,he upheld the order of the AO.

1441/M/15 Jankar Mechanical Works (11-12)

5.As stated earlier none appeared before us, on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative.supported the order of the FAA.

6.We find that assessee had offered the income received from two parties under the head business income, that the AO and the FAA had taxed the rental income under the head house property income, that nothing has been brought on record to prove that it was not a simple case of hiring.Therefore, we donot want to interfere with the order of the FAA.Upholding his order we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee.