ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) BY the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A" for the asst. yr. 2002 -03 proposing the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the income of Rs. 11,80,53,083 and Rs. 25,13,561 derived by the appellant from procurement of wheat and paddy as agent of Food Corporation of India/Government is exempt under s. 10(29) of the Act along with rental income from warehouses, the business of the appellant being one integrated ? (ii) Whether if the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, the common expenses incurred by the appellant can be apportioned notionally towards taxable and non -taxable income ? (iii) Whether the income from rent of warehouses received by the appellant, is to be computed under the head 'Income from house property' even though it is derived in the course of its business -
(2.) THE assessee is a warehousing corporation and claimed exemption under s. 10(29) in respect of income received from procurement of wheat and paddy as agent of Food Corporation. This claim was not allowed on the ground that exemption under s. 10(29) was confined to income derived from letting of godown from warehousing or storage, etc.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plea of the assessee that income will fall under the head of "House property" instead of "business" was also rejected. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the AO on the question of apportionment of expenses. Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that question (i) is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 177 : (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) which has been followed by this Court in the case of the assessee in IT Ref. No. 120 of 1998 Haryana Warehousing Corporation vs.;