JUDGMENT - Dr. SARAF B.P., J.:---By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion: (i) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the provisions of section 40(c) and not 40-A(5) are applicable to the case of the Director employee of the assessee company? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the fans installed in the administrative office of the assessee constituted "plant and machinery" for the purpose of granting depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the controversy involved therein is covered by the judgment of this Court in (C.I.T. v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd.)1, 201 I.T.R. 567. Following the same it is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the admitted position is that fans were installed in the administrative office of the assessee company. The only question that arises for consideration is whether these fans constituted plant and machinery for the purpose of grant of depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act provides for allowance of depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. There is no dispute in this case that the funds were owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business. The only question that is sought to be raised is that the fans installed in the office premises did not amount to plant or machinery within the meaning of section 32 of the Act. We do not find any merit in the contention in view of the inclusive definition of plant contained in sub-section (3) of section 43 of the Act which reads: ""plaint" includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purposes of the business or profession." Thus the expression "plant" has been given an extended meaning even to include vehicles, books, scientific apparatus etc. used for the purpose of business or profession. It does not define "plant" as such. used for the purpose of business or profession. It does not define "plant" as such. It has to be construed in the popular sense. So construed, "plant" will mean and include apparatus used by a businessman for carrying on his business. It is not confined to apparatus used for mechanical operations or processes or industrial business. In this view of the matter, as observed by the Bombay High Court in (C.I.T. v. Bank of India Ltd.)2, 1979(118) I.T.R. 809, a particular item may be "plant" in the hands of one person but not necessarily so in the hands of another. As observed by the Supreme Court in (Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. C.I.T.)3, 1986(157) I.T.R. 86, the test to be applied for such determination is: Does the article fulfil the function of a plant in the assessee's trading activity? Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business? If the answer is in the affirmative, it will be a "plant". Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we find it difficult to hold that fans installed in the office premises of the assessee do not constitute plant or machinery eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. 4. In view of the above the second question is also answered in the affirmative in the favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----