Judgment 1. The question of law referred to this court in terms of Sec.256 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act"), is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee for initial depreciation under Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of buildings whose construction commenced before March 31, 1961, but was completed after March 31, 961, was proper ?" 2. The assessment year in question is 1963-64. The only question which calls for our decision is whether the assessee was entitled to initial depreciation. 3. In order to appreciate the point in controversy, the history of the proceeding must be set out. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessee claimed initial depreciation for its buildings completed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in terms of Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee without discussing any aspect of the matter. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC remanded the matter to the ITO with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee and to find out as to which of the buildings, newly erected during the previous year, fell in the categories mentioned in Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act. The AAC also directed that in regard to those buildings, the ITO should allow initial depreciation at the rate of 20% of the actual cost of the buildings without being meticulous about the date of commencement of the construction thereof. In the view of the AAC, the date of commencement of the construction of the building was immaterial. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the view taken by the AAC and a direction in pursuance thereof, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Department contended that in order to claim the benefit of Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act, it was not only essential that the construction/erection must have been completed after March 31, 1961, but it also must have been commenced after March 31, 1961. The Tribunal did not accede to the stand of the Department. It accordingly held that the only relevant date for the purpose of grant of initial depreciation in terms of Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act was the date of completion of the building. The Tribunal did not accede to the stand of the Department. It accordingly held that the only relevant date for the purpose of grant of initial depreciation in terms of Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act was the date of completion of the building. It has been completed after March 31, 1961, and, therefore, the assessee would be entitled to the allowance. The Department, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed an application under Sec.256 of the Act. The Tribunal in pursuance thereof has referred to this court a question of law which we have set out earlier. 4. Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act lays down that an assessee shall be entitled to depreciation on buildings at a certain percentage, in the case of any building which has been newly erected after the 31st day of March, 1961, where the building is used solely for the purpose of residence of persons employed in the business. The buildings in question were used for the residence of the officers of the company. The entire controversy hinges around the expression "newly erected". Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the word "erected" takes in its sweep the commencement of the erection as well as the completion thereof and, therefore, the full effect of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act must relate to only those cases where the commencement as well as completion has taken place after the 31st day of March, 1961. We regret, we find no substance in this submission for the reasons which we shall state herein-below. 5. Sec.23 of the Act prescribes the manner in which the annual value of house property has to be calculated. It lays down that the annual value of any property for the purpose of Sec.22 of the Act shall be as laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.23 of the Act. The second proviso thereto reads as follows : "Provided further that the annual value as determined under this sub-section shall- (a) in the case of a building comprising one or more residential units, the erection of which is begun after the 1st day of April, 1963, and completed before the 1st day of April, 1970,..." 6. The expression used in Sec.23 of the Act read in juxtaposition with that in Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act is rather significant. The expression used in Sec.23 of the Act read in juxtaposition with that in Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act is rather significant. Where the Legislature intended to lay down two termini, it did so as in Sec.23 of the Act. In Sec.32 of the Act, however, the commencement of the erection of a building work-was dropped. An inference, therefore, must be drawn that the lawmakers did not insist or were not meticulous about the commencement of the construction/erection but the benefit was complete if a building was newly erected after March 31, 1961. The expression used in the statute gives an inkling to the object of the Act. Reading the two provisions together, we have not the least doubt about the import of the expression. Erection in Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act must relate only to the completion of the process of erection without any reference to the date of commencement. 7. There is yet another reason for the view that we have taken in regard to the content of the expression "newly erected". The allowance as contemplated by Sec.32(1)(iv) of the Act found place in the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as well. In Sec.10(2)(vi) of the old Act, it was laid down that in the case of a newly erected building, the erection of which had begun and completed between April 1, 1946, and March 31, 1956 (both dates inclusive), 15% of the cost was allowed as initial depreciation to the assessee. It is thus noticeable that where the law-makers intended to lay down the commencement as well as completion of new buildings as the test for granting initial depreciation, it was said so specifically. The law-makers must be granted the wisdom of the provisions as well as the appropriateness of the expression used. A change in the expressions leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the date of commencement of a new building was given the go-by in the 1961 Act for the purpose of extending initial depreciation allowance. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in taking the view that the date of commencement of the buildings of the assessee was entirely irrelevant. 8. The answer to the question referred to this court must be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.