The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer, after adequate enquiry, has taken a judicious view. Revision under section 263 is not permissible merely because the Commissioner may entertain a different view on the issue. The stand adopted by Assessing Officer is one which is plausible supported by CBDT Circular and Supreme Court decision and, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous in terms of the provisions of section 263. The interpretation of the CBDT circular No. 16/2017 dated 25-04-2017 emphasizes that lease rent received by the assessee from letting out the building along with other amenities in a software Technology Park would be chargeable to tax under the head ‘Income from House Property’. Therefore, every case of letting out the building along with other amenities would automatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely restricted to software Technology Park only as misunderstood by the commissioner. Lastly as far as the supreme court decision is concerned, i.e., Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673/ 231 Taxman 326 (SC)  which stipulates that where object as per object clause of the company was to do business of letting out, the same must be taxed under the head income from business and profession, also could not be distinguished by the commissioner. In this backdrop, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the commissioner had erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 and the order passed by him was quashed (.AY. 2018-19)