Judgment :- ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. At the instance of the Revenue, following questions have been referred to this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, leasing out of different properties would amount to carrying on of business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding (even at the narration stage) that 'the assessee-firm carries on the business of leasing out of different properties' ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under the IT Act ?" Factual position as highlighted in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee, a partnership firm, was assessed to tax since the assessment year 1986-87 in the status of AOP till the asst. yr. 1989-90. For the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1990-91, it claimed registration as a firm. A total income of Rs. 59, 560 which comprised of income from house property was returned. The AO did not reckon the activity to be a business activity and refused registration under s. 185(1)(b) of the Act Matter was carried in appeal before the Dy. Commissioner of IT [in short 'the Dy. CIT(A), Views of the AO were confirmed by the first appellate authority On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the activities carried on by the assessee could be construed to be business activities and, therefore, registration was allowable. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Admiralty Flats Motel 1982 133 ITR 895 (Mad) : TC 13R.824 and CIT vs. Lakshmi Co. 1982 133 ITR 904 (Mad) : TC 33R.967 and the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the CIT vs. Khairagarh Timber Traders 1982 137 ITR 346 (MP) : TC 33R.964 and Prem Trading Co. vs. CIT 1987 62 CTR (MP) 7 : 1987 166 ITR 211 (MP). On a reference being sought for, prayer was acceptedHeard the learned counsel for the Revenue. vs. CIT 1987 62 CTR (MP) 7 : 1987 166 ITR 211 (MP). On a reference being sought for, prayer was acceptedHeard the learned counsel for the Revenue. None appears for the assessee in spite of notice It is the stand of the Revenue that though it is not impermissible to tax income derived from letting out of properties and treating rent as business income, yet, much would depend upon the ownership of property. Reliance is placed on the decision of the apex Court in S. G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 8 : 1972 83 ITR 700 (SC) : TC 13R.906 The learned counsel for the Revenue is correct in his submission that much would depend upon the factual aspects, more particularly, the nature of interest in the property. Since those aspects were not considered by the Tribunal, which merely relied on some decisions for the broader principle that ownership of property and earning income by letting out property can constitute business income, we think it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to give specific findings on the question as to whether who was owner of the property and what was the nature of the interest of the assessee therein and thereafter consider the question whether the income can constitute business income. It goes without saying that the question of grant of registration will be consequential to such finding Tax reference is, accordingly, disposed of.