These are Departmental appeals filed against order of CIT (A) for asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1979-80. Grounds Nos. 1 &2 are identical in nature for both years and ground No. 3 in 1979-80 is additional ground. grounds as preferred are reproduced below: "Learned CIT (A) has erred in (i) holding that ITO was incorrect in treating income from lease as income from other sources directing ITO to treat income from lease as income from business. (ii) deleting disallowance of Rs. 26,041 made by ITO out of claim of interest; and (iii) deleting disallowance of Rs. 19,819 out of electricity expenses paid by assessee on behalf of lease. For sake of convenient, since both years involved two common grounds, appeals are disposed of by common order. Regarding ground No. 1 for both years, facts are that assessee firm by means of agreement dt. 29th June, 1976 made Auto Glass Industries, Jaipur, partnership concern as lessees, to carry on all activities which firm had been carrying on hitherto in premises and using all facilities of plant and machinery etc., of assessee firm for which assessee firm was to be paid licence fee of Rs. 1,40,000 in first year and subsequently licence free of Rs. 20,000 per month and licence was for period of about 2 years. ITO observed in his order that assessee did not carry out any manufacturing operation in year under consideration, yet observed that lease money so received is to be assessee under/s. 56. assessee filed appeal against this order of ITO and cited number of decisions of various High Courts as will as Supreme Court. assessee argued before AAC that income from this agreement is business income as assessee had only asked M/s Auto Glass Industries to carry on manufacturing activities and other activities on their behalf. AAC after considering all judgments relied upon by assessee and latest of them being CIT vs. Rajindra Flours & Allied Industries (1982) 30 CTR (All) 282: (1982) 137 ITR 17 (All) wherein it was held that temporary loans for period of 5 years did not mean discontinuation of business and income form lease was assessable as business income. Since lease was only for two years in instant case, CIT (A) directed that income form lease should be assessee under head business income. Before us ld. Departmental Represenative tried to lay emphasis on fact that lease money received by assessee is assessable under head other sources only as it was only in nature of lease only. ld. AR mentioned that he has nothing more to add than what he had already stated before CIT (a) that he relied upon various decision placed before CIT (A). After hearing both parties, we find lot of force in submission of ld. AR and in view of various judgments cited before CIT (A) which have been given below, we agree with view expressed by ld. CIT (A) and hold that income which assessee had received as lease money is assessable only under head income from business: CEPT vs. Shri laxmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC) CIT vs. Naional Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 155 (Bom) Lakshmi Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 645 (Mad) Coringa Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 523 (AP) Shri Ram Mahadeo Prasad vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 211 (All) C. P. Pictures Ltd. vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 1181 (Bom) Dal Chand & Sons vs. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 247 (P&L) G. R. Narasimier & Co. vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 257 (Mad) CIT vs. Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd. 1978 CTR (Guj) 141: (1978) 112 ITR 701 (Guj) CIT vs. Katihar Jute Mills (P) Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 781 (All) CIT vs. Vikram Cotton Mills. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 829 (All) CIT vs. Rajinder Flour & Allied Industries (1982) 20 CTR (All) 282: (1982) 137 ITR 17 (All) Addl. CIT vs. Rajinder Flour & Allied Industries (P) Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 402 (Del) Regarding No. 2, ITO disallowed Rs. 26,041 on ground that interest paid on borrowings was releasable to debit balances of partners. ld. CIT (A) observed that debit balance was as consequence of losses suffered by partners and was not due to personal withdrawal by partners. He, therefor, directed that ITO to allow interest paid on unsecured loans. ld. Departmental Represenative supported order of ITO. ld. AR argued that ITO did not appreciate facts that loans were taken in year but not in earlier years and main grievance of ITO in not allowing interest as expenditure was due to his treating lease money as income from other sources. Since CIT (A) as already observed that debit balance of partners was due to business losses which had not been rebutted by Department CIT (A) was fully justified in directing ITO to allow same. After hearing both parties and since there being no dispute to fact that debit balance was due to business losses only and not due to personal withdrawals of partners. We, therefore, uphold order of CIT (A). This disposes of common ground Nos. 1 & 2 for asst. yrs. 1977-78 * 1979- 80. Regarding ground No. 3 for 1979-80 wherein Department was aggrieved by CIT (A) order in directing to allow electricity expenses of Rs. 19,819 from business income of assessee, ITO observes in his order that electricity expenses of Rs. 19,819 were paid by assessee from for period of 5 months when assessee had leased out its entire building, machinery etc., to M/s Auto Glass Industries and as such this being no expenditure of assessee, did not allow same. appellant argued before CIT (A) that lessee had terminated lease agreement as it found that it was incurring losses. Since assessee was owner of factory not non-payment of this charges would have resulted in disconnection of power without which assessee could not run its business. expenditure paid was of commercial expediency and should, therefore, be fully allowed. ld. CIT (A) agreed with views of assessee and allowed appeal of assessee. Before us ld. Departmental Represenative again pressed that it was not expenditure of assessee and ld. CIT (A) was wrong in stating in his order that expenses incurred by assessee were in interest of business, and in allowing same. ld. AR argued that it takes considerable time to get power sanction and once there is disconnection, it would have meant total disruption of business of assessee. amount was paid only to retain power line and power connection. it was, therefore, clearly in interest of business and expenditure incurred was due to commercial expediency of assessee. After hearing both parties, we are in total agreement with views expressed by ld. AR and we accordingly uphold order of CIT (A). In result, Departmental appeals for both years are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. RAJASTHAN MIRROR MFG. COMPANY