GROVER, J.M.: Revenue s agitation is that ld. CIT(A) Meerut, erred in directing ITO to consider income from letting out of shed under head income from business and allow all admissible expenses thereunder. order contested is dt. 26th March, 1985 and related assessment was framed on 18th Jan., 1984. respondent-company was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of cloth on powerlooms. From assessment order we notice that such business was carried only upto March, 1976 and after that assessee sold its plant and machinery and let out premises to Food Corporation of India for being used as warehouse. According to assessing officer, after company sold its plant and machinery what was only property which was necessarily assessable under s. 22 of IT Act, 1961. Therefore, right from asst. yr. 1977-78 such treatment was given. Reproduction of following portion of CIT(A) s order would show that for all preceding years not only ITO s orders came to be reversed by first appellate authority, but Revenue s appeals came to be dismissed and further reference applications were also not allowed by Tribunal: "The ITO has treated income from letting out of shed as income from house property whereas appellant has treated same as income from business. It was brought to my notice that for immediately preceding asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81, my predecessor in his order dt. 2nd July, 1983 in appeal Nos. 69 to 70/82-83/DDN had allowed appellant s claim and came to conclusion that income should be treated as business income as asset had been leased out temporarily without intention of closing of business as where business is temporarily suspended, rent so received would still have to be treated as business income. Department went up in appeal before Tribunal who dismissed same vide their order dt. 15th Dec., 1983 in ITA Nos. 4549, 4550 & 4551 (Del)/83. Subsequently, Tribunal also dismissed reference application filed by Department by its order dt. 19th May, 1984 in RA Nos. 340, 341 and 342 (Del) of 1984. In circumstances, appellant s appeal is allowed and ITO is directed to consider income under head income from business and allow all admissible expenses while computing income under head business income." For Revenue Shri M. K. Chakraborty in addition to judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Storage (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 596 (SC) referred to decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Narayandas Kishandutt vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 636 (MP). Shri Chakraborty very emphatically stressed that Madhya Pradesh High Court s judgment fitted like gloves to facts of case. We have reproduced relevant portion of CIT(A) s order with purpose to show that basis of earlier year s decision has been that where business is temporarily suspended without any intention of closing it if premises are let out, income therefrom still should be treated as from business. Against facts in assessee s case facts in Narayandas Kishandutt s case (supra), as noted in head notes were: "The assessee, which carried on business at its head office and at number of branches, claimed during relevant assessment year that rental income from letting of various godowns and factories should be assessed under head "Income from business" and not as "Income from property", on ground that letting amounted to exploitation of commercial assets and w s incidental to business of assessee. ITO negatived contention of assessee and assessed rental income under head "Income from property". On appeal, CIT(A) and, on further appeal, Tribunal upheld order of ITO." Reference under s. 256(1) of Act also came to be decided against assessee because Hon ble High Court held that no material was placed by assessee before Revenue nor was it found by Tribunal that letting of factories and godowns was act of commercial expediency or that it was incidental to business. assessee s case, therefore, is clearly distinguishable. Being consistent with approach followed in assessee s own case in earlier years and by relying upon decision of CIT(A), we dismiss this appeal. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SHIWALIK WEAVERS ASSOCIATION (P) LTD.