Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the agreements executed between the assessee and the GAIL were for leasing out the premises, secondly for furnishing of the area leased out and thirdly for maintaining the leased out area. The leasing out of the assets by the assessee simpliciter would not constitute business income. Further, the partner of the assessee-firm had admitted that the property was purchased to let out on rent to GAIL. The assessing authority had also come to the conclusion that no systematic set up was established for doing business activity and the assessee had failed to point out the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of the transactions. As the assessee did not carry out any systematic, recurring business activity and in organised manner, nor was there any volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions, and only one person was employed by him for the management and to look after the leased property, the taxing authorities had rightly held the receipts to be income from house property and income from other sources and not business income. (AY. 2006-07, 2008-09)