R.M. Lodha, J.—The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question for answer by the High Court: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee should be assessed under the head ‘Income from Business’ instead of ‘Income from Property’ as assessed by the ITO?” 2. M/s. Hotel Ratanada International Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur (for short ‘the assessee’) was incorporated on 22.04.1978. Inter-alia, Clause (3) of the Memorandum of Association provides that one of the objects of the company is to carry on all or any of the business in respect of land and/or properties” dwelling houses, hotels, motels, shops, offices, industrial estates, agricultural land etc. 3. The aforesaid question relates to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts pertaining to the assessment year 1981-82. The status of the assessee is a Private Limited Company. In the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82, a loss of Rs. 967/- was shown. In the profit and loss account for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee showed rental income of Rs. 32,238/- from the eight flats let out to service class tenants and rental income of Rs. 3600/- for the office accommodation let out to M/s. Hira Fertilizers and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Except the total rental income of Rs. 35,838/-, no other source of income is shown in the profit and loss account. Against this income, the assessee, claimed various expenses in respect of repairs, electricity and water charges etc. for the properties let out. The expenses for the maintenance of office, interest and depreciation was also claimed in the profit and loss account resulting in a loss of Rs. 967/-. 4. It was not disputed before the Assessing Officer that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. for the assessment year 1980-81, on similar facts, the material income from the flats and office was held to be income under the head ‘income from property’. 5. The Assessing Officer relying upon the order passed for the assessment year 1980-81 and for the reasons stated therein, held that the rental income for the current year (1981-82) has to be taxed under the head ‘income from property’. 5. The Assessing Officer relying upon the order passed for the assessment year 1980-81 and for the reasons stated therein, held that the rental income for the current year (1981-82) has to be taxed under the head ‘income from property’. The claim for depreciation was dis-allowed as depreciation is not allowable in respect of the income from house property. The building was found to be under construction and, therefore, no depreciation was allowable on the land and building under construction as well. The Assessing Officer, thus, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,965/- as income from the property. 6. The assessee went in appeal from the order of assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 08.01.1987. By this order, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 1982-83. 7. In further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon clause (3) of the Memorandum of Association and held that looking to the Memorandum of Association of the company and over-all facts of this case, the rental income received by the assessee should be assessed under the head “income from business”. 8. The legal position is no more res-integra that the heads of income enumerated in the Income Tax Act are mutually exclusive and income derived 10 from different sources falling under specific heads has to be computed for the purposes of taxation in the manner provided by the appropriate section. 9. In the case of East-lndia Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, (XLII (1961) ITR 49), the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions contained in Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) held that the distinct heads specified in section 6 of the Income Tax Act indicating the sources were mutually exclusive and income derived from different sources falling under specific heads has to be computed for the purpose of taxation in the manner provided by the appropriate Section. If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in section 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. 10. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Universal Plast Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1995) and Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeals Nos. 10. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Universal Plast Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1995) and Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeals Nos. 1685-87 and 1700 of 1999 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 237 (1999) ITR 454, was concerned with the decisions from the Calcutta and Andhra Pradesh High Court. The principal question was whether the income received by the assessee by leasing out the factory was business income? The Supreme Court considered some of its earlier decisions and culled out to legal position thus: “(1) no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease, amount, rents, license fee) received by an assessee from leasing or letting out of assets would fall under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”; (2) it is mixed question of law and fact and has to be determined 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 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 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 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 of business assets.” 11. Applying the aforesaid test, particularly the test laid down in Clause (4) that in a case where the business never started or has not started, the assets cannot be considered to be the business assets and transaction would only be exploitation of property by an owner but not exploitation of business assets, to the facts of the present case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the rental income received by the assessee should be assessed under the head ‘income from business’, is palpably erroneous and unjustified. 12. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has not given any reason much less the cogent reason for the said finding. 13. The position seems to be fairly admitted that the construction of the hotel had neither been completed during the relevant assessment year nor any hotel business had commenced. In the circumstances, the rental received by the assessee from its property, by no stretch of imagination can be held to be income from business. Clause (3) of the memorandum of association does not alter that position at all. Clause (3) only provides, inter alia, the objects of the company to carry on business in respect of the land property dwelling house, hotel, motels etc. The said Clause cannot lead to any justifiable inference that the rental income of the assessee is an income from the business. 14. There being a specific head under the Income Tax, 1961 “income from house-property”, the income received as rent from the property ordinarily must be computed under the head unless it is clearly established by the assessee that the said income has been received in the course of business from the property where the business had started. 15. We, accordingly answer the question in the negative. Since the assessee * * * * *