Dy.Cit, Corporate Circle-2(1), ... vs M/S. Orissa Mining Corporation Pvt. ... on 21 June, 2022
8. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in para 3.2 shows that the ld.
CIT(A) has taken into consideration the notifications of the Revenue &
Disaster Management Department regarding the diversion of the forest
land for non-forest purpose and she has categorically given a finding that
the notification made compulsory for afforestation to be done. Clearly the
land on which the afforestation is done nor the land on which is acquired
for the purpose of afforestation did not belong to the assessee. Thus, the
assessee does not derive any enduring benefit from the aforesaid activity.
Further, ld. CIT(A) has recognised the fact that the expenditure is on
account of revenue notification. This being so and also on the fact that the
assessee is doing mining activities and it is a pre-condition that the
assessee has to restore the land to its original form, once the mining
activities are completed and the land not belonging to the assessee nor
the assessee having any right over those trees planted during the
afforestation, the assessee derives no enduring benefit. Further this issue
6
ITA No.352/CTK/2019
is also covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd.(supra). This
being so, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and
the same stands confirmed.