Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our consideration. (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the proviso to rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Income-tax Officer was not correct in allowing proportionate depreciation for the assessment year 1980-81 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal's further finding that the Income-tax Officer cannot impose any condition while allowing change of previous year is sustainable in law ?" * The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the spinning of yarn, textiles, etc. The assessee was following the financial year as the previous year and in its application dated February 11, 1980, the assessee-company desired a change of its accounting year ending on the month of June of every subsequent year. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated February 21, 1980, acceded to the request of the company on the following conditions (i) The company can close their accounts for 15 months up to June 30, 1980, and offer proportionate income or loss for the period April 1, 1979 to June 30, 1979, for 1980-81 assessment. The proportionate income or loss can be worked out on turnover or time basis (ii) Depreciation for 1980-81 as returned will be allowed only for three months (iii) The assessee should get the actual valuation for purposes of allowance of gratuity liability as on June 30, 1980 The assessee-company accepted the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the change of previous year. However, the assessee when it filed a return of income on January 9, 1981, claimed a loss to the tune of Rs. 8, 61, 810. In that, depreciation was claimed to the tune of Rs. 29, 55, 710 being 100 per cent. of depreciation. The assessee also requested for the refund and the same was also allowed. The Commissioner of Income-tax revised the order passed under section 141A of the Act on the score that the company had agreed at the time of change of previous year that it will claim depreciation for the assessment year 1980-81 only for a period of three months instead it claimed 100 per cent. depreciation, Therefore, he held that only one-fourth of depreciation was admissible for the accounting year and directed the Income-tax Officer to pass suitable orders. depreciation, Therefore, he held that only one-fourth of depreciation was admissible for the accounting year and directed the Income-tax Officer to pass suitable orders. The Income-tax Officer passed an order subsequently holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation for a period of three months and granted one-fourth of the depreciation admissible and completed the assessmentThe assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that under the provisions of the proviso to rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Income-tax Officer was justified in allowing one fourth of the depreciation and dismissed the appeal The assessee went up on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the proviso to rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, has no application and the same would apply only to a case where change in the previous year exceeds a period of 12 months or more. The Tribunal held that the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the change of previous year that the depreciation for 1980-81 would be allowed only for three months was void and the proviso to rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was not applicable, that the assessee would be entitled to the depreciation in accordance with law and allowed the appeal. On an application filed by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the questions of law as set out earlier Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law and the assessee has claimed undue advantage by changing the previous year and the assessee's claim for depreciation should be restricted only for three months and it is not open to the assessee to claim depreciation for the entire period of 12 months. He further submitted that if the view of the Appellate Tribunal is accepted, it will create an anomalous situation enabling the assessee to claim full depreciation for three months and another full depreciation for the next nine months which would enable the assessee to get undue advantage. He also submitted that where the length of the previous year was three months, on account of change of the previous year the assessee would be entitled to claim only one-fourth of the depreciationMr. He also submitted that where the length of the previous year was three months, on account of change of the previous year the assessee would be entitled to claim only one-fourth of the depreciationMr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, on the other hand, submitted that the condition imposed by the Income-tax Officer, at the time of change of the previous year was void and the Appellate Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the condition should be ignored and the assessee is entitled to full depreciation An assessee is not entitled to vary the expression "previous year" as is applicable to him except with the consent of the Income-tax Officer and upon such conditions as the Income-tax Officer may think fit to impose. Sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act provides that it is impermissible for the assessee to change his previous year except with the consent of the Income-tax Officer and it is open to the Income-tax Officer to stipulate such conditions as the Income-tax Officer may think fit to impose in law for change of the previous year. In our view, the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the change of the previous year should be legal, valid and reasonable and should not be against the provisions of the Act. In Esthuri Aswathaiah v. CIT, the income of the entire previous year consisting of 21 months, consequent to the change of previous year was taxed at the rate prescribed by the relevant Finance Act. The contention of the assessee before the Supreme Court was that the Income-tax Officer should have assessed the total income at the rate applicable to the income of the last period of 12 months. But the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the assessee and held once the length of the previous year was fixed and the income of the previous year was determined, that income must be charged at the rate specified in the Finance Act relevant for the assessment year 1952-53. The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that once the length of the previous year is fixed and the income of the previous year is determined, that income is liable to be charged at the rate specified in the Finance Act. The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that once the length of the previous year is fixed and the income of the previous year is determined, that income is liable to be charged at the rate specified in the Finance Act. Therefore, it follows that the assessee is also entitled to all statutory deductions which are admissible for the said period and it is impermissible for the Income-tax Officer to curtail the statutory deductions available for the said period. There can be no dispute that the proviso to rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, in its terms has no application to the facts of the case as the said rule is applicable only where there is a change in the previous year exceeding a period of 12 months. In the absence of any provision of the Act or the Rules curtailing the grant of deduction, we are of the view that it is impermissible to curtail the amount of depreciation allowance only on the ground that the previous year fixed was three months, especially where the assessee is entitled to full depreciation even if the machinery or plant was used for the purpose of his business for a single day during the previous year. The anomaly pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue is inherent in the statute granting the normal depreciation and the condition imposed cannot be against the provisions of the statute. Though the assessee has initially agreed that it will restrict its claim to depreciation for a period of three months, the condition imposed by the Income-tax Officer is against the provisions of the Act and it does not bind the assessee though it was accepted by the assessee earlier. The Allahabad High Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O. S. Bajpai, ITO, held that the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the change of the previous year should be valid, legal and reasonable. The Allahabad High Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O. S. Bajpai, ITO, held that the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer for the change of the previous year should be valid, legal and reasonable. We have held that once the length of previous year is determined, the assessee is entitled to all the statutory deductions which are admissible under the law for such period and the statutory deductions cannot be curtailed unless the provisions of the statute warrant the sameThis court in A. M. Ponnurangam Mudaliar v. CIT has taken the view that that the expression "during the previous year", in section 32 of the Act would show that even if the asset was used for a single day in the business of the assessee, the full depreciation allowance should be given under section 32(1) of the Act as it is not prescribed that the assessee should be the owner for the entire period of the previous year. Therefore, the mere fact that the length of the previous year was four months consequent upon the change of the previous year would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the full amount of depreciation available under the barrier of law for that previous year. We therefore hold that the condition imposed by the Income-tax Officer is against the provisions of the Act itself and the mere fact that the assessee had accepted it earlier at the time of change of the previous year does not preclude the assessee from questioning the same. We have already held that the conditions imposed by the Income-tax Officer should be reasonable and valid in the eye of law. Since the condition imposed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case is not valid in the eye of law it has to be taken as a void condition and the assessee is not prevented from claiming full depreciation as the statutory provision permits the full depreciation if the machinery was used for a single day. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the assessee is entitled to claim full amount of depreciation, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had earlier accepted that it would claim depreciation at one fourth of the admissible depreciation. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.