SINGHAL, J. — The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench-A, Camp at Jaipur has referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order dated 17.02.1981 for the assessment year 1976-77 : — 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in directing that initial depreciation on tools and instruments amounting to Rs. 7,77,407/- and Rs. 1,58,117/- respectively be allowed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 29,886/-incurred on fixation of RCC jali on the boundary wall is allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction u/s 80 (J) is admissible in full as against proportionate deduction allowed for four months by the IAC (Assessment)? (2) Brief facts of the case are as under during the course of examination of books of accounts of the Company, it was found that the tools of the value of Rs. 7,77,407/- and instruments of Rs. 1,58,117/- purchased by the assessee Company were claimed for initial depreciation. The claim for allowance of initial depreciation was rejected on the ground that the same could be allowed only when new machineries or plants are installed and in the present case they have not been installed, therefore, deduction in respect thereof cannot be allowed. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that most of these items are electric equipments and although they are moved from place to place, they constitute machinery for the working of the factory. The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Indian Turpentine & Rosin Co. Ltd. (1) was relied upon and the deduction was allowed. The Allahabad High Court while deciding the above case has taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meer Mohd. The decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Indian Turpentine & Rosin Co. Ltd. (1) was relied upon and the deduction was allowed. The Allahabad High Court while deciding the above case has taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meer Mohd. Ali (2), wherein the Apex Court has held that the expression installed did not necessarily mean fixed in position but was also used in the sense of "induct" or "introduce" or "placing an apparatus in position for service or use." The restricted meaning which was given by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority is contrary to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court referred to above and there being no other judgment on the point contrary to the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. We are of the view that the expression "installed" would include placing the apparatus in position for service or use. (3) The Calcutta High Court in C.I.T. v/s. Steel Rolling Mills of Hindustan (P) Ltd. (3) has held that if the popular meaning of the word "installation" which envisage set up of complicated piece of machinery or manufacturing unit for the purpose of production is given, then number of items would have been excluded from the expression "plant". Following the Allahabad High Court, it was held that if gas cylinder is used for storing gas, it can be said to be installed in the business. The view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is upheld and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that initial depreciation of tools and instruments amounting to Rs. 7,77,407/- and Rs. 1,58,117/- respectively was allowable. (4) A claim of Rs. 29,886/- was made by the assessee in respect of R.C.C. jalies fixed on boundary wall of the shoping centre in the year 1972-73, which was disallowed on the ground that the expenditure incurred in the year 1972-73 was of capital nature and now it cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure and the expenditure does not pertain to the year under dispute. The C.I.T. (Appeals) held that capital expenditure cannot become admissible revenue expenditure or the admissible loss subsequently when assests get destroyed. The C.I.T. (Appeals) held that capital expenditure cannot become admissible revenue expenditure or the admissible loss subsequently when assests get destroyed. This is subject to exception i.e. in the case of depreciable asset there is a provision for allowance of terminal allowance under Section 32 (1) (iii) of the I.T. Act. However, no depreciation was claimed in respect of the assets in the earlier year obviously because the expenditure was considered to be pertaining to the development of land and it was actually debited to land development account and hence the reduction of claim was up held. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has observed that the assessee claimed loss occurred on account of breakage of jalies to the extent of Rs. 29,886/-. These were fixed in the earlier years and as and when they were broken they were replaced. Since this expenditure was only replacement of fences and does not result in any advantage of enduring benefit the amount is to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. It would be evident that the Tribunal has proceeded on altogether a different ground, which was not before the I.A.C. (Assessment) or before the C.I.T. (Appeals) and it was never the claim of the assessee that the amount pertains to replacement. (5) Mr. Ranka, appearing on behalf of the assessee has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Kalyanji Mayji & Co. (4), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that in respect of specific provision for allowance of "current repairs", other repairs can be allowed under general deduction of business expenditure. It was further observed that neither assessee has brought into existence view point nor was an advantage for the enduring benefit of business acquired by expenditure and the expenditure was revenue in character. (6) Reliance has also been placed on Empire Jute Company vs. Commissioner of Income tax (5), wherein a member of the association purchasing loom hours from another member was held entitled to deduction in respect of the price paid as revenue expenditure. (7) Had it been a matter of replacement, the position would have been different, but from the record it is evident that the claim of the assessee before the I.A.C. (Assessment) was that Jalies have become obselete and have become of no use for the Company and, therefore, the Company is entitled to deduction against the business income. (7) Had it been a matter of replacement, the position would have been different, but from the record it is evident that the claim of the assessee before the I.A.C. (Assessment) was that Jalies have become obselete and have become of no use for the Company and, therefore, the Company is entitled to deduction against the business income. In the language of the question framed, it has nowhere been disputed by the assessee that the said expenditure does not relate to fixing of jalies on the boundary wall and pertains to replacement. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the judgments relied upon by Mr. Ranka are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Income tax Tribunal was not justified in allowing deduction without setting aside the finding of the I.A.C. (Assessment) and C.I.T. (Appeals) that the said claim was made on account of Jalies having become obselete and of no use for the Company and the question of replacement was not before the I.A.C. (Assessment) and C.I.T. (Appeals). In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter is sent back to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal to give a finding on the question as to whether the amount pertains to Jalies, which have become obselete or is in respect of replacement. (8) The I.A.C. (Assessment) has held that the Palghat unit started production from the month of December, 1975 and the deduction under Sec. 80 J could be allowed for the period of 4 months. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed deduction fully. Without going to discuss this matter in further details, suffice to say that this point is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Plastic Dela Foot Wear (6), wherein this court has held that special deduction is allowable under Section 80-J of the Income-tax Act for the full year although the industrial unit ran only for a portion thereof. In view of the judgment of this court, we are of the view that the view taken by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law. (9) The reference is answered accordingly. It is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to direct that initial depreciation on tools and instruments amounting to Rs. In view of the judgment of this court, we are of the view that the view taken by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law. (9) The reference is answered accordingly. It is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to direct that initial depreciation on tools and instruments amounting to Rs. 7,77,407/- and 1,58,117/- respectively be allowed and was further justified in holding that deduction under section 80-J is admissible in full as against proportionate deduction allowed for four months by the LA.C. (Assessment). It is also held that the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 29,886/- incurred on fixation of R.C.C. Jalies on the boundary wall is allowable as revenue expenditure. On this point, the Tribunal shall hear both the parties and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. (10) No order as to costs.