9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates to the deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). 3. The Assessee claimed depreciation on a biogas plant and that was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the plant had not started giving the end product, that is, biogas during the relevant previous year but only from the subsequent accounting year. According to the Assessing Officer, by claiming depreciation in the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars for reducing its tax liability and was, therefore, liable to be penalized. 4. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that since the effluent treatment plant had been put to use for its business purposes, and even though the gestation period resulted in production of biogas only in the subsequent assessment year, that would not deprive the Assessee from claiming depreciation. 9. On the above reasoning, the Tribunal accepted the view of the Commissioner and set aside the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer. According to learned counsel for the Revenue before us, the imposition of penalty was fully justified since the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and was liable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. We are not in a position to agree with learned counsel for the Revenue. In the first instance, it must be noted that the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial opinion in favour of adopting a liberal interpretation or a wider interpretation to the expression 'used for the purposes of the business'. 14. In Multican Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2005] 278 ITR 142, the Calcutta High Court considered the expression 'used for the purpose of business or profession' as appearing in Section 32 of the Act and concluded that the claim of depreciation is not dependent on the 'actual' use or the asset being 'put to' use. The expression has to be interpreted in the ordinary grammatical sense, as in common parlance and not in the legal or technical sense. 15. This Court had occasion to consider the expression as appearing in Section 32 of the Act in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Refrigera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
