Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sun Paper Mills Ltd.

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The facts in this case are similar to the case decided by us today in Tax Case No. 1890 of 1984. The assessee is

the same. The nature of the expenditure claimed is also the same. Only the assessment year is different, The assessment year is 1976-77.

The expenditure deduction of which had been claimed was under the head ""Effluent Disposal"". That included the cost of cultivation as well. The

ITO excluded such cost of cultivation and allowed the amount which can be regarded as reasonable expenditure incurred in letting the effluent from

the factory premises to the adjoining land. The amount so allowed was affirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. On further appeal, the

Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee in full. The Revenue is now before us questioning that order of the Tribunal allowing the cultivation

expenditure also as part of the cost of effluent disposal.

We have considered this question in Tax Case No. 1890 of 1984 (supra) decided by us today. For the reasons stated therein, we hold that the

Tribunal was in error in allowing such expenditure on cultivation under the head ""Cost of effluent disposal"". The reference is answered accordingly.