JUDGMENT Ajit K. Sengupta J. 1. IN this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83, the following question of law has been referred to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the assessee carried on its business not at 85/85, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, but at 23, Brabourne Road, Calcutta, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation in respect of capital expenditure incurred at 83/85, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, under Section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. SHORTLY stated, the assessee derives Income from leasehold property situated at Nos. 83 and 85, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The assessee renovated those premises and incurred capital expenses for this purpose. The assessee claimed depreciation on its capital expenditure under Section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow the claim on the ground that the assessee did not carry on any business from those premises Nos. 83 and 85, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, where the capital expenditure was incurred but carried on business from premises No. 23, Brabourne Road, Calcutta and, therefore, the provisions of Section 32(1A) of the said Act were not applicable. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the issue had already been decided by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1978-79. Following the said decision of the Tribunal, the appellate authority directed the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation in accordance with law on the capital expenditure incurred for renovation of the leasehold premises. 3. THE Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that it could not be disputed that the point in dispute between the parties was covered by the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1978-79 in the assessee's own case. It was, however, stated that the said order has not been accepted by the Department which desired to keep the matter alive. The Tribunal followed the said order for the assessment year 1978-79 and declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. It was, however, stated that the said order has not been accepted by the Department which desired to keep the matter alive. The Tribunal followed the said order for the assessment year 1978-79 and declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 4. WE may add that in the assessment year 1978-79, the Income-tax Officer noted that the assessee claimed Rs. 11,028 as depreciation on renovation carried out in the leasehold premises. This amount was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as the assessee did not carry on any business in the leasehold premises. The assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the claim should be allowed on the reasons recorded in the appellate order for the assessment year 1976-77. The appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing depreciation to be allowed in respect of leasehold premises located at Nos. 83 and R5, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, though no business was carried on by the assessee from the said premises. It was held by the Tribunal that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given a finding that subletting of leasehold properties constituted the assessee's business and, accordingly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in allowing depreciation to the assessee. For the assessment year 1978-79 the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application under Section 256(1) of the Act. Upon enquiry about the fate of the said reference for the assessment year 1978-79, it transpires that the court declined to answer the question as no paper book was printed or filed. WE may also mention here that in the assessment year 1979-80, the same controversy arose between the parties and the application made by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal with the following observations : "From the facts narrated, it will be clear that the decision of the Tribunal is based on a finding of fact that the business of letting out the premises is carried on by the assessee in the leasehold premises in respect of which depreciation has been claimed. The finding of the Tribunal is thus essentially a finding of fact which does not give rise to any question of law. The finding of the Tribunal is thus essentially a finding of fact which does not give rise to any question of law. Further, a plain reading of Section 32(1A) showed that the assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of the property in question. No interpretation of law was involved. WE are firmly of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law and that the question proposed by the Revenue is not a question of law." The Revenue accepted the said decision and did not pursue the matter any further. Since, in this case, arguments have been pressed before us, we intend to dispose of the case on merits. 5. THE question is whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of the premises in question. 6. THE Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, inserted Section 32(1A) entitling a lessee of a building to depreciation in respect of any construction of any structure by way of renovation or extension or improvement to the building held by him under lease, where he carries on his business or profession. The language of the said sub-section as it stood before its deletion by the Amendment Act of 1986 with effect from April 1, 1988, is as follows : "Where the business or profession is carried on in a building not owned by the assessee but in respect of which the assessee holds a lease or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession after the 31st day of March, 1970, on the construction of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to, and by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to, the building, then, in respect of depreciation of such structure or work, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of Section 34, be allowed". If the wording of the said sub-section is contrasted with that of Sub-section (1), it will appear that the depreciation on building used for the purposes of business or profession under Section 32(1) is not qualified or circumscribed by the expression "where the business or profession is carried on in a building . . ." 7. If the wording of the said sub-section is contrasted with that of Sub-section (1), it will appear that the depreciation on building used for the purposes of business or profession under Section 32(1) is not qualified or circumscribed by the expression "where the business or profession is carried on in a building . . ." 7. THIS raises a question as to what the import of this circumscribing expression is, in contradistinction to Sub-section (1) which reads "In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of Section 34, be allowed." 8. THIS creates a particular difficulty in a case where the activity of obtaining a lease of a building or buildings for sub-letting is construed as business, whether the provisions shall also apply to such buildings under lease fetching rental Income admitted to be business Income ; in other words, whether by sub-letting the building taken on lease, it can be said that the business of sub-letting buildings is carried on in such building, apart from the building wherefrom the control and management of the said business is exercised. The Explanatory Notes placed on the floor of Parliament while introducing the Bill which inserted this Sub-section (1A) are in the following terms (see [1969] 72 ITR (St.) 95) : "Clause 5 seeks to make certain amendments to Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. Sub-clause (a) seeks to insert a new Sub-section (1A) in Section 32. Under the new Sub-section (1A), where an assessee bona fide incurs capital expenditure for the purpose of the business or profession at any time after March 31, 1969, on any structure or work constructed or done by him in or in relation to or by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to, any building held by him under a lease or other right of occupancy and used for the purposes of his business or profession, he will be eligible for the grant of depreciation allowance on such capital expenditure at rates to be specified in the Income-tax Rules." 9. THE Explanatory Note does not at all deal with the import of the qualifying phrase "where the business or profession is carried on in a building" ; rather, it shows the intention of Parliament to grant this concessional right on general terms in relation to any building held by the assessee under lease and used for the purposes of his business. THE expression "where business is carried on" is not at all dealt with. 10. Board's Circular No. 26, dated March 19, 1971 containing Explanatory Notes on the implication of the amendment observes in paragraph 56 as follows : "Under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, an assessee is not entitled to depreciation or any other deduction in respect of capital expenditure incurred by him on renovation or extension of, or improvement to, a building not belonging to him which is used for the purposes of his business or profession. Under a new Sub-section (1A), inserted in Section 32 by Section 5 of the Amending Act, with effect from April 1, 1971, provision has been made for the grant of depreciation on capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing of any work, in or in relation to, and by way of renovation or extension of, or improvement to any building which is used for the purposes of the business or profession, where such building is not owned by the assessee but in respect of which the assessee holds a lease or other right of occupancy." As a matter of fact, the Explanatory notes have totally ignored the restrictive impact of the expression "where the business or profession is carried on". 11. NO doubt, if the letting out of the building taken on lease is construed as a business, then the building under lease so let out by the lessee to third parties can be said to be a building used for the purpose of his business. 12. BUT the question that intrigues us is whether it can be said that by sub-letting of a building taken on lease, the assessee carries on its business in those buildings, apart from the building under lease wherefrom he manages, controls and conducts the business, the latter building can be said to be the place wherefrom the business is carried on. BUT the question that intrigues us is whether it can be said that by sub-letting of a building taken on lease, the assessee carries on its business in those buildings, apart from the building under lease wherefrom he manages, controls and conducts the business, the latter building can be said to be the place wherefrom the business is carried on. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the phrase "carry on" is defined as "conduct and manage". The assessee may be conducting his business with the buildings under a lease which are let out. But the phrase "carry on" would mean that it carries on the business only at its principal office where business decisions are made and the management and control are exercised over the business. Usually a company carries on business only at its principal office where the directors meet and the general business of the company is transacted. 13. IN any case though the Explanatory Notes placed before Parliament while introducing the Bill or the Explanatory Notes of the Board failed to take notice of the circumscribing and restrictive effect of the adverbial phrase "where the business or profession is carried on in a building", the same cannot be called into aid and the construction of the provision has to go by the meaning of the words used by the Legislature in framing the provision. 14. IN the course of hearing of this reference, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the expression used in Section 32(1A) being "where the business or profession is carried on in a building not owned by the assessee", an assessee is not entitled to depreciation in respect of capital expenditure incurred on leasehold structure unless he carried on business in that very structure. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee is carrying on business "with the structure" at 83 and 85, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta and not "in the structure" at that premises. It is true that the omission to take note of the limiting implication of the expression "where the business or profession is carried on in a building" is on account of the failure to foresee the extraordinary contingency of the type obtaining in the instant case. It is true that the omission to take note of the limiting implication of the expression "where the business or profession is carried on in a building" is on account of the failure to foresee the extraordinary contingency of the type obtaining in the instant case. Those notes having no occasion to go into that question, it may be inferred that the concession in Sub-section (1A) applied only to the building where the general transactions of the business take place and the business decisions are made for conduct, control and management of the business. But we have to read the provisions allowing depreciation as a whole. The court has to construe the law not always strictly to its words specially where its provisions fail to meet an unforeseeable fact situation. In such an event, construction has to be in a manner which will harmonise with the totality of the legislative scheme. 15. SECTION 32(1) of the Act requires depreciation to be allowed in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture "owned by the assessee" and "used for the purposes of business". In other words, under Section 32(1), depreciation is not admissible if the assessee does not own the depreciable asset even when the same is used by him for the purpose of business. Since capital expenditure in respect of leasehold structure is not otherwise deductible in computing total Income, Parliament thought it prudent to extend the scope of Section 32(1) and inserted new Sub-section (1A) so as to allow depreciation in respect of capital expenses incurred on leasehold premises used for the purposes of business. 16. IT is true that the word "in" appearing in Section 32(1A) is inappropriate ; but the intention of the statute is clear even from other provisions of law. For example, Section 57(ii) of the Act also makes reference to Section 32(1A) and requires depreciation to be allowed in respect of capital expenses on leasehold structures where the rental Income thereof is assessable to tax as Income under the head "Income from other sources" in view of Section 56(2)(iii) of the said Act. For example, Section 57(ii) of the Act also makes reference to Section 32(1A) and requires depreciation to be allowed in respect of capital expenses on leasehold structures where the rental Income thereof is assessable to tax as Income under the head "Income from other sources" in view of Section 56(2)(iii) of the said Act. In fact it would be wholly illogical to contend that, while depreciation would be admissible to an assessee under Section 57(ii) read with Sections 56(2)(iii) and 32(1A) while computing the rental Income in respect of leasehold premises under the head "Income from other sources", no such depreciation is admissible when such Income is assessed to tax as business Income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The aforesaid interpretation of Section 32(1A) as is being suggested by the Revenue would make Section 57(ii) otiose since there can be no case of the assessee carrying on business in a leasehold premises and the rental Income thereof being assessed under the head "Income from other sources" ; for, if the assessee occupies the building as his business premises, ordinarily, there would be no rental Income. If there is any rental Income derived incidentally like occupation of a part of business premises by employees, labourers, etc., the same would be assessable as business Income. 17. SINCE no provision of a statute can even be held to be otiose, the interpretation of Section 32(1A) as suggested on behalf of the assessee may be accepted since this is the only reasonable interpretation of the said section. If an owner of a building gets the benefit of allowance if such building is used for the business, there is no reason why the lessee will be disentitled from such benefit. The benefit cannot be restricted only to the building wherefrom the business is carried on. The same benefit as is available to the owner under Section 32(1) should avail to the occupant under a lease. That must be construed as the legislative intent, as it saves the provision from the anomalies arising from the Revenue's contention. 18. ACCORDINGLY, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.