JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—The assessee has preferred these appeals challenging the order passed by the Tribunal adding fumigation, disinfestations charges, supervisory charges and portion of the miscellaneous income not offered to tax under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The assessee is an authority constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Ware House Act, 1961. The assessee claimed exemption of its income under Section 10(29) of the Act. The appellant filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1997-98 declaring 'Nil' income. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had the following income besides warehouse charges: (i) Interest Income (ii) Fumigation and Disinfestation Services (iii) Income from Supervisory Charges (iv) Miscellaneous income (v) Aerial Spraying collections (vi) Coffee and soil fumigation collections 2. The Assessing Authority held that assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(29) with regard to the above category of incomes and he framed an order of assessment. Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee contended that the fumigation, disinfestation and supervisory service charges collected by the assessee were directly connected with the storage of goods as well as facilitating marketing of commodities and therefore, he is entitled to the exemption from payment of tax. The Appellate Commissioner did not accept the case of the assessee, but it accepted the case of the assessee to the effect that whatever expenditure it incurred out of the income so derived should be given deduction and therefore, to that extent he remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority to work out the expenditure related to addition made in each assessment year. Aggrieved by the said order both the assessee as well as the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and granted exemption under section 10(29) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court set aside the said order and directed the Tribunal to look into the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court set aside the said order and directed the Tribunal to look into the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1999 SC 1388 . 3. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. (supra) held that income from other sources, other than letting out of warehouses/godowns is to be brought to tax and they are not liable for exemption under Section 10(29) of the Act. Thus, they confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee is again in appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends that it is not in dispute that the assessee is an authority. It is in the business of letting out warehouses to facilitate marketing of commodities. They not only collect rent for storage of goods to be marketed but they also collect fumigation charges, disinfestations charges and supervisory charges to see that the goods stored are in a marketable condition. Therefore, all the income which is derived under these different heads are exempted from payment of tax under Section 10(29). The judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corpn.'s case (supra) is misinterpreted by the Tribunal and therefore, he submits a case for interference is to be made out. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Orissa State Warehousing Corpn.'s case (supra) has categorically held that charges which are collected by the assessee were not mentioned in Section 10(29) to attract tax liability. Fumigation charges, disinfestation charges supervisory charges have nothing to do with rental charges payable and therefore, he submits the findings recorded by the three authorities concurrently is valid and legal and to not call for any interference. 6. Fumigation charges, disinfestation charges supervisory charges have nothing to do with rental charges payable and therefore, he submits the findings recorded by the three authorities concurrently is valid and legal and to not call for any interference. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the substantial question of law that arise for our consideration is as under: Whether the fumigation charges, disinfestation charges, supervisory charges collected by the Corporation from its customer to whom the warehouse is let out for the purpose of storage and then facilitate marketing would full within the mischief of Section 10(29) of the Act? 7. Chapter 3 in which Section 10 finds a place deals with income which do not form part of total income. Section 10 in particular deals with income not included in total income. Section 10(29) reads as under: 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, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. 8. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid provision which was deleted from the statute by Finance Act, 2002, which came into effect from 1-4-2003, that in computing total income of a previous year in the case of authority constituted in 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 marketing of commodities shall not be included in the total income of such assessee. It is true that in the aforesaid provision there is no mention of fumigation charges, disinfestation charges of supervisory charges. The assessee claims that since they have let out godowns for marketing of commodities, they have an obligation to the customer to keep the commodities in a marketable condition, till such commodities are removed from the godown or warehouse. Otherwise the very purposes of taking these godowns and warehouses or the authority which is constituted for marketing of commodities purpose would be defeated. Therefore, they are under an obligation to fumigate, disinfestate or supervise the commodities stored in the godowns and warehouses. They collected the charges incurred for such purpose in addition to the rental income for letting out of the godowns or warehouses. Therefore, they are under an obligation to fumigate, disinfestate or supervise the commodities stored in the godowns and warehouses. They collected the charges incurred for such purpose in addition to the rental income for letting out of the godowns or warehouses. As the language employed in the Section is "any income derived from letting of godowns for facilitating the marketing of commodities, and as all those activities are conducted to facilitate marketing of commodities, the income derived from there is included in Section 10(29). 9. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider this question in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. (supra) where they formulated the following two substantial questions for consideration: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the banks on fixed deposits was exempt under section 10(29) of the IT Act, 1961? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received from the banks on fixed deposits was incidental to or consequential to the activities of the business of the assessee and was not taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' and, thus exempt under section 10(29) of the IT Act, 1961? 10. In answering the said question they have also held as under: 9. On a plain reading of section 10(29) of the Act as above, it appears that the pre-requisite element for the entitlement as regards the claim for exemption is the income which is derived from letting out of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilating marketing of commodities and not otherwise. The Legislature has been careful enough to introduce in the section itself, a clarification by using the words 'any income derived therefrom', meaning thereby obviously for marketing of commodities by letting out of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the same. If the letting out of godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose, question of exemption would not arise. 23. In our opinion, it would not be permissible to introduce words in the provisions of cl. (29). To do so will be to read in the aforesaid clause words which do not occur there. If the letting out of godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose, question of exemption would not arise. 23. In our opinion, it would not be permissible to introduce words in the provisions of cl. (29). To do so will be to read in the aforesaid clause words which do not occur there. Moreover, all the activities of a body constituted for the marketing of commodities are such which ultimately may be found to facilitate the marketing of commodities. If income derived from every activity of an authority constituted for the marketing of commodities was meant to be exempted under clause (29), the said provision would have been enacted as follows: any income derived by an authority constituted under any law for the time being in force for the marketing of commodities Such a provision would be found in clauses (20A), (21) and (22) of section 10 of the Act. A perusal of these clauses would show that only such income as is derived from a particular source is exempted by clause (29) of section 10 of the Act. Therefore, to claim exemption, it must be proved that the income derived by an authority constituted for the marketing of commodities is income which is derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for the purposes specified in section 10(29), which are storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. If the letting of godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose or if income is derived from any other source, then such income is not exempt under that clause. 25. Having due regard o the language used, question of exemption would arise pertaining to that part of the income only which arises or is derived from the letting of godwons or the warehouses and for the purposes specified in section 10(29) of the Act, as noticed above. The statute has been other categorical and restrictive in the matter of grant of exemption; storage processing or facilitating the marketing of the commodities are definitely regarded as three different forms of activities which are entitled to exemption in the event of their being any income therefrom. The statute has been other categorical and restrictive in the matter of grant of exemption; storage processing or facilitating the marketing of the commodities are definitely regarded as three different forms of activities which are entitled to exemption in the event of their being any income therefrom. We do land our concurrence to the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and record that in the event the letting or godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose or if income is derived from any other source, then and in that event such an income cannot possibly come within the ambit of section 10(29) of the Act, and is thus not exempt from tax. 11. Therefore, from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that for the letting of godowns or warehouses is for any other purpose i.e., any purpose other than facilitating the marketing of commodities, or if income is derive from any other source i.e., other than letting out godowns and warehouses, then such income is not exempt in the clause. Having due regard to the language used, a question of assumption would arise pertaining to that part of the income which arises or is derived from the letting of godowns or the warehouses and for the purposes specified in Section 10(29) of the Act, as noticed above. Therefore, in the aforesaid judgment it is nowhere stated that when income is derived from letting out of godowns or warehouses to facilitate marketing of commodities and as a consequence of such letting out if the assessee incurs expenditure for facilitating commodities to be marketed by fumigation, disinfestations or for supervision, that income is not included under Section 10(29). Therefore, this is a case of misreading of the judgment by the Tribunal. 12. In fact in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corpn. [1994] 75 Taxman 66 (Raj.) the Division Bench has squarely pointed out the meaning of the words 'facilitating marketing of commodities' at para 12 which is as under: 12. Therefore, this is a case of misreading of the judgment by the Tribunal. 12. In fact in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corpn. [1994] 75 Taxman 66 (Raj.) the Division Bench has squarely pointed out the meaning of the words 'facilitating marketing of commodities' at para 12 which is as under: 12. It is true that the words 'facilitating the marketing of commodities' is of wider scope which include number of activities, but the same has to be read along with 'any income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for facilitating the marketing of commodities.' The income which is exempt under this clause must be derived from 'letting of godowns.' for facilitating the marketing of committees. The words 'facilitating the marketing of commodities' cannot be considered independently and, therefore, the exemption which has been granted is for the income which has been derived from 'letting of the godowns.' the sources of income which has been exempted in this clause. The assessee may have different sources of income, but the exemption is not given to the assessee on its entire income, but only that part of the income which arises from letting of the godowns for facilitating the marketing of commodities. If the income is not connected from letting of godowns, than the question of interpretation of words 'facilitating the marketing of commodities' would not be considered. The phrase 'facilitating of marketing of commodities' have different meaning in different context and would cover the activities including the purchase and sale etc., but here on the interpretation of section 10(29) we are of the view that the income derived from letting of godowns is a must and if the income is not derived which has been given for letting of the godowns and such three purposes are (1) storage, (2) processing and (3) facilitating the marketing of commodities. The godowns can be let out for storage of the commodities. Similarly, the godown can be let out for processing of commodities and the godown can be let out for facilitating the marketing of commodities. The letting of godown in all the three circumstances is inevitable and if the main act of letting of godown is absent, then the benefit from facilitating the marketing of commodities cannot be claimed exempted. And therefore they have proceeded to hold as under: 13. The letting of godown in all the three circumstances is inevitable and if the main act of letting of godown is absent, then the benefit from facilitating the marketing of commodities cannot be claimed exempted. And therefore they have proceeded to hold as under: 13. The fumigation charges in respect of the service charges which have been collected during the course of storage of goods in the godown of the assessee and, therefore, to that extent the income derived therefrom could be considered as income from letting out of the godowns for storage of goods.We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court which squarely applies to the facts of this case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the authorities including that of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 14. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, Appellate Commissioner and the Assessing Authority are herby set aside. (iii) Therefore, we direct the Assessing Authority to recompute the income keeping in mind the findings which we have recorded in this order.