RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a reference at the instance of the revenue. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1978-79. ( 2 ) THE assessee in this case is a warehousing corporation. The Income Tax Officer, following his earlier order for the assessment year 1977-78 held that the income from receipts by way of fumigation, disinfestation charges (External) and laboratory analysis charges in addition to income are taxable. Regarding the allocation of expenses the ratio of non-taxable receipts and taxable receipts excluding the Bank interest and the dividends as adopted in the earlier years was followed. The assessee claimed interest under section 214 on the advance tax of Rs. 41,375/ -. The income Tax Officer disallowed interest stating that it has been paid after the due date. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). The assessee urged before the Commissioner that the assessment was wrong inasmuch as the income Tax Officer had erred in bringing to tax the receipt of Rs. 89,800/- relating to fumigation charges (External) and Rs. 5,920/- relating to laboratory analysis fees. The Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) found that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's Order dated 10-2-1981 in the assessee's case for the year 1976-77 and found that such charges are covered by Section 10 (29) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Following that decision of the Tribunal, he found that the income earned by the assessee by way of fumigation charges (External) and laboratory analysis fees arc exempt under Section 10 (2) of the Act. As regards interest under Section 214 of the Act on the in- , stalmcnt of advance tax paid on 20-3-1978, he directed the Income Tax Officer to allow the interest under Section 214 of the Act, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in chandrakant Damodardas v CIT, 123 ITR 748. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal again following its earlier order in I. T. A. Nos. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal again following its earlier order in I. T. A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1979 for the assessment year 1976-77, took the view that in respect of the interest under Section 214, the ratio laid down by the decision of the gujarat High Court in the aforesaid decision applies and the Commissioner of Income-tax was right in allowing interest under Section 214 of the Act and on the other aspect of the case also, followed the earlier case and held against the revenue. Aggrieved by this order, at the instance of the revenue this reference has been made on the following two questions:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal is right in law in upholding the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal's) order who held that the fumigation charges (External) of rs. 89,800/- and laboratory analysis fees of Rs. 5,920/- are exempt under section 10 (29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal is right in law in upholding the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal's) order who directed the Income tax Officer to allow interest under Section 214 on the instalment of advance tax paid by the assessee on 20-3-1978?"3. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts arise as under: the assessec is a warehousing corporation carrying on the following activities: i) Letting of godowns. ii) Fumigation of goods stored in its godown. iii) Fumigation of goods stored elsewhere. iv) Arranging for transportation to and out of its godowns and v) Laboratory analysis of the goods not stored in its godowns. The main activity of the assessee is that of letting of godowns. It is obvious therefore, if the goods are stored in the assessee's godowns, they have got to be kept free from infestation and therefore fumigation activity is incidental to keep them in fit condition. Similarly transport and other charges also are linked with the main business activity. But the question for consideration is whether the fumigation activity in respect of goods not stored in assessee's godowns can be said to be activity connected with the main activity of letting the godowns. 5. Section 10 (29) of the Act reads as follows:"10. Similarly transport and other charges also are linked with the main business activity. But the question for consideration is whether the fumigation activity in respect of goods not stored in assessee's godowns can be said to be activity connected with the main activity of letting the godowns. 5. Section 10 (29) of the Act reads as follows:"10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- xx xx xx (29) In the case of an authority constituted under any law for the time being in force for the marketing of commodities, any income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. "an analysis of this section would indicate that, (1) it should be an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities, (2) it should be an income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses, and (3) letting must be for the purpose of storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. 5. So far as the first ingredient is concerned, there is no dispute in this case at all. The assessec is admitted to be an authority constituted under law for the marketing of commodities. The issue in this case is not regarding the income derived from the letting of godown or warehouse for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities but in cases where such activities are carried where the godown is not actually let. The assessee's main business activity is that of letting out the godowns. But the fumigation activity is also indulged in respect of the goods not stored in the assessee's own godown and this activity is termed as fumigation (External ). Similarly the laboratory analysis of goods not stored in the assessee's own godown also will have to be considered as external activity. Thus the assessee is engaged in two types of activities, (1) that of letting the godowns and services connected therewith and (2) other services rendered in respect of goods not stored in the assessee's own godown. Read that way, the activity in respect of fumigation (External) will fall outside the provisions of Section 10 (29) of the Act. Thus the assessee is engaged in two types of activities, (1) that of letting the godowns and services connected therewith and (2) other services rendered in respect of goods not stored in the assessee's own godown. Read that way, the activity in respect of fumigation (External) will fall outside the provisions of Section 10 (29) of the Act. But the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that it had followed in an earlier year that the said income is also exempted under Section 10 (29) of the Act. But a reading of the statement of the case for the relevant year would disclose that that question never fell for consideration as is clear from the statement of case in respect of which a reference has been made in I. T. A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1979. This is how this aspect is stated"rcgarding disinfcstation and fumigation charges received in respect of foodgrains of State or Central Government not stored in the assessee's godowns which are claimed as exempt under Section 10 (29) the Appellate Asst. Commissioner held that this question does not arise for the assessment year 1973-74. "when the question itself did not arise for consideration for the relevant year, the Tribunal could not have relied upon the earlier order to come to the conclusion that the activity has connection with the main business activity of the assessec of storing foodgrains. Even otherwise the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, we have got to answer the first question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. 6. So far as the second question is concerned, the scope of Section 214 has been fully discussed by the decision of Gujarat High Court with which we respectfully agree. This decision has been followed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v GJ. Femandez, 160 ITR 602. Hence, the view taken by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter is correct and we answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative and against the revenue. Answered accordingly. --- *** --- .