JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.—This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in I. T. A. No. 570/Bang/2000 raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee under the head 'Income from business' instead of 'Income from house property? 2. We have heard learned the counsel for the parties. 3. After hearing we have noticed the following undisputed facts in this case. The respondent-assesses is a partnership firm. The firm having taken the land on lease as a sub-lessee has constructed a shopping complex and let out the same to various tenants along with certain facilities which, according to the assessee, is an equipment and furniture. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring loss of Rs. 3,87,110. The same was processed on October 11, 1995. The Assessing Officer considering the income from house property passed an order of assessment rejecting the contention of the assessee that there was no loss of income. This order was challenged by the assessee by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which appeal came to be dismissed. Against which a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, held that the income derived by the assessee has to be assessed under the head "Income from business" only. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex and Industries (P.) Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 517 KAR . According to him, income from letting out a building cannot be treated as income from business, it should have been treated as income from house property. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-assesses contends that in view of Section 56(2)(iii) of the Act, since the assessee has let out the building with equipment and furniture, income derived has to be treated as income from business only. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-assesses contends that in view of Section 56(2)(iii) of the Act, since the assessee has let out the building with equipment and furniture, income derived has to be treated as income from business only. He further contends that the very purpose of partnership is to construct building and let out the same and that is the only source of business activity of the firm and if the firm is in existence, there cannot be any business. Therefore, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the copy of the partnership deed filed by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that it was for the Assessing Officer to give its finding on whether the firm is having any other source of income and whether the firm is carrying on other business activity and if it is so what are the business activities the firm is doing. In view of Section 56 of the Act, it is for the Assessing Officer to give a finding whether it should be treated as income from business or from other sources or income from house property. But looking into the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, we are not able to find out whether the Assessing Officer by applying his mind has passed an order of assessment that facts of the case attracts the definition of "house property income". Since the Assessing Officer has not given a proper finding in regard to the profit and nature of business of the firm and nature of business income derived by the assessee, the matter has to be considered by the Assessing Officer afresh. 7. In the result, we allow this appeal setting aside the orders passed by all the authorities and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by us as above without answering the question of law. All contentions are left open.