JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?B?, New Delhi in ITA No. 1886/Del/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1990-91.

2. The grievance of the Revenue relates 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 assessed 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 assessed had furnished inaccurate particulars for reducing its tax liability and was, therefore, liable to be penalized.

4. The Commissioner reversed the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessed had not furnished inaccurate particulars. At best, it was a case of rejection of the assessed?s explanation for a claim of depreciation and, therefore, the case would not be covered by Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5. The Tribunal held that the assessed is really a distillery unit and in terms of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, it was mandatory for the assessed to treat its effluent before discharging the same either on the ground or in a drain or a water body. The assessed had employed Swiss technology for treatment of the distillery effluent and it so transpires that the technology is such that it also helps in producing biogas which could be utilized by the assessed for its business of running a distillery.

6. Possession of the effluent treatment plant was handed over to the assessed on 20th March, 1990 and the assessed immediately put it to use on 21st March, 1990 by filling the main reactor with water and providing media for injecting seed material and development of bio-cell for methane gas generation. The required quantity of sludge, that is, industrial waste was also added to the plant.

7. According to the assessed, since the process was technical and biological, it took some time for the biological reaction to stabilize and the actual manufacture of biogas started in the subsequent year, that is, 1991-92.

8. The assessed claimed depreciation on 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 assessed 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 assessed 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 business of the assessed was not that of manufacture of biogas. It was a distillery and the assessed was required by law to treat the effluent before discharging it. It just so transpires that the technology used by the assessed for treatment of effluent was capable of enabling the assessed to produce biogas. Manufacture of biogas was not the business of the assessed but was ancillary to the treatment of effluent.

11. The claim of depreciation by the assessed was in terms of Section 32(1) of the Act and as pointed out by learned Counsel for the assessed, what is of importance is that the plant or machinery should be owned by the assessed and used for the purposes of its business. According to the assessed, both conditions were satisfied by the assessed but, unfortunately, the Assessing Officer took a different view.

12. In The Liquidators of Pursa Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar , the expression ?used for the purpose of the business? as appearing in Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was considered by the Supreme Court. It was held that the words obviously mean ?used for the purpose of enabling the owner to carry on the business and earn profits in the business.?

13. This Court had occasion to consider the expression as appearing in the 1922 Act in Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi . After surveying the decisions on the subject, it was held that there was a consensus of judicial opinion in favor 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 , 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. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd., [2000] 113 TAXMAN 103. This Court noted that even though the Supreme Court had left the question of active or passive user open in the Liquidators of Pursa Ltd., but in Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , the Bombay High Court had given it a wider meaning. After considering Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. [1945] 13 ITR 415 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Viswanath Bhaskar Sathe [1937] 5 ITR 621, this Court was of the view that passive user of machinery such as by keeping it in good working condition so that it could be used at any moment would be the correct approach to adopt for interpreting the expression ?used for the purposes of the business? occurring in Section 32 of the Act.

16. All these decisions suggest that the expression ?used for the purposes of the business? needs to be liberally interpreted. This is precisely what the assessed did and the view taken by the assessed was certainly a plausible view ? it just so happens that the Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessed. But that by itself would not mean that the assessed had furnished inaccurate particulars for the purposes of reducing its tax liability. A penal provision such as the one that we are concerned with ought to be strictly construed.

17. We may also note that it has concurrently been held by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal that the assessed had not furnished inaccurate particulars. We do not think, under these circumstances, that it would be appropriate to reverse the view taken by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises in this regard inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the decision of the Tribunal is perverse or that the claim made by the assessed was motivated.

18. The appeal is dismissed with costs. We assess counsel?s fee at Rs. 10,000/- which will be paid by the Revenue by depositing the amount by way of a cheque in the name of the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today.

19. List for compliance on 20th February, 2008.