O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 08/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30.12.2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT (A)", has erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer treating the warehousing charges received by the appellant as Profits and Gains of Business or Profession as against the same being held to be Income from House Property consistently for past many years.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the assessing officer and the CIT (A) have erred in not appreciating the correct facts of the case and thereby arriving at incorrect conclusion in relation to the warehousing charges of Rs. 52,77,504/- earned by the appellant.

3. The CIT (A) has erred in not following a binding decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in appellant's own case for AY 2013-14. The order of the CIT (A) is in violation of principle of consistency and accordingly the same deserves to be quashed.

4. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. The solitary issue that rises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the rental income of INR.52,77,504/- earned by the Assessee. During the relevant previous year, the Assessee had offered aforesaid rental income earned from Hindustan Lever Ltd (HUL) in terms of the Agreement, dated 01/03/2001, from leasing of warehouse. The Assessee had offered the aforesaid rental income to tax under the head ‘Income from House Property’. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid income was liable to tax under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Professions’. The appeal preferred by the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A) did not yield any favorable results as the same was disposed off as partly allowed vide Order, dated 08/08/2025. The Learned CIT(A) concluded that the rental income was chargeable to tax under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Professions’. However, the Learned CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee to the extent the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction of other business expenses of INR.5,23,764/- against the aforesaid business income.

5. Being aggrieved the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record.

7. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee appearing before us placed on record the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 wherein the identical issue has come up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and was decided in favour of the Assessee. It was held by the Tribunal that the rental income earned by the Assessee was in the nature of Income from House Property. The relevant extract of the decision of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.3543/Mum/2019, dated 05/04/2021 reads as under:

“7. I have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. It is a fact on record that the assessee was given land by GIDC to set up a factory for its garment manufacturing and trading activity. It is not disputed that for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid activity, the assessee has set up a factory over the land for carrying out such activity. The income shown from the stitching business clearly demonstrate such fact. It is also evident, since Assessment Year 2001-02, the assessee had let out a part of the u