JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. The following question is referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation of 100 per cent. on the written down value of the furnaces which were acquired in the earlier previous years calculated at the actual cost of these furnaces less depreciation ?" 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing various types of glass. The assessee had purchased and put to use fire glass melting furnaces. Till the year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, no depreciation was allowable on such furnaces and the expenditure on that account was treated as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Rules came to be amended with effect from January 1, 1970, and as per the new depreciation rules, the whole of the cost of fire glass melting furnaces became eligible for depreciation. The assessee, therefore, during the assessment year 1970-71, claimed depreciation in respect of fire glass melting furnaces, but the same was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer by observing as under : "During the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee did not construct any new direct fire glass melting furnace. Only the expenditure was incurred on replacement which was allowed as a revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, neither the depreciation at 20 per cent. can be allowed on the written down value of these furnaces nor the 100 per cent. depreciation as claimed by the assessee is allowable with regard to the written down value of these furnaces during the year." 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal held that "the assessee's case is completely out of the definition of written down value as specified in sub-clause (b) of section 43(6). . . . As per sub-clause (a), "written down value" would mean "in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee". Therefore, the written down value as mentioned in the columnar head of the depreciation schedule as applied to the fire glass melting furnaces of the assessee should only be read as referring to the actual cost of the asset acquired by the assessee in the year in which the same was acquired ". Therefore, the written down value as mentioned in the columnar head of the depreciation schedule as applied to the fire glass melting furnaces of the assessee should only be read as referring to the actual cost of the asset acquired by the assessee in the year in which the same was acquired ". Thus, the claim of the assessee in this behalf was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that 100 per cent. depreciation was allowable even in respect of plant or machinery acquired in the earlier previous years and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in arbitration in holding that 100 per cent. depreciation was allowable only if the asset was acquired in the previous year. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. It appears that thereafter the Revenue moved the Tribunal for referring the aforesaid question to this court but did not meet with any success. It, therefore, approached this court under section 256(2) of the Act and on being directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred the abovestated question to this court. 5. What is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is that till January 1, 1970, the expenditure which was incurred by the assessee on replacement was allowable as revenue expenditure. It is only from January 1, 1970, that fire glass melting furnaces became a depreciable asset and, therefore, no depreciation could have been allowed in respect of such furnaces purchased earlier. 6. Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation. The relevant part of section 32, as it stood then, read as under : "32(1). In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of section 34, be allowed - . . . . (ii) in the case of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, other than ships covered by clause (i), such percentage on the written down value thereof as may in any case or class of cases be prescribed." 7. The Rules did not prescribe any percentage in respect of direct fire glass melting furnaces. . . . (ii) in the case of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, other than ships covered by clause (i), such percentage on the written down value thereof as may in any case or class of cases be prescribed." 7. The Rules did not prescribe any percentage in respect of direct fire glass melting furnaces. It was for that reason that till January 1, 1970, no depreciation could be claimed by the assessee on the direct fire glass melting furnaces even though the said furnaces did answer the description of machinery or plant as contemplated by section 32 of the Act. As stated earlier, on January 1, 1970, the Income-tax Rules came to be amended and 100 per cent. depreciation was provided in respect of direct fire glass melting furnaces. In the Schedule under the heading "Machinery and plant", direct fire glass melting furnaces are mentioned as item No. F. (5) and against that, the admissible rate of depreciation is shown as 100 per cent. of the written down value. 8. Thus, from January 1, 1970, the depreciation became admissible on direct fire glass melting furnaces. It is an admitted position that in this case no depreciation was allowed earlier nor had the assessee claimed the expenditure incurred for replacement as allowable revenue expenditure. There is nothing in the relevant provision pertaining to depreciation to show that if machinery or plant is acquired before the previous year, no depreciation can be allowed in respect of such machinery or plant. On the contrary, the definition of written down value as contained in section 43(6) clearly indicates that even in the case of an asset acquired before the previous year, depreciation can be allowed provided it is otherwise admissible. Though not directly on the point, the decision of this court in CIT v. Bhavnagar Salt and Industries Works P. Ltd. 1987 (163) ITR 265 also supports our view. In that case, it is held that even in respect of old salt pans, depreciation at 100 per cent. was admissible. From this decision, it becomes clear that irrespective of the fact whether an asset is old or new if the other conditions are satisfied, depreciation would be admissible. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. was admissible. From this decision, it becomes clear that irrespective of the fact whether an asset is old or new if the other conditions are satisfied, depreciation would be admissible. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. on the written down value of the furnaces which were acquired and that the written down value of the furnaces was to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost of these furnaces less depreciation. 9. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.