Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of the assessment of the assessee's income for the asst. yr. 1982-83 is as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for extra depreciation allowance is not allowable. 2. The assessee is a hotel having five star facilities in Covelong village. For the relevant assessment year, it had secured the approval of the Department of Tourism which is admittedly the authority component to grant approval under s. 33 of the IT Act, 1961. It is also not disputed that s. 33 remained in the statute book during the relevant assessment year. Before the Tribunal, there was no dispute about the competence of the Tourism Department to grant approval. It is submitted at the Bar before us that the power of the Central Government under the proviso to s. 33(6) has been delegated to the Department of Tourism. 3. Sec. 33 of the Act deals with development rebate. The development rebate was withdrawn w.e.f. 1st June, 1974. However, s. 33 was not repealed. While withdrawing the development rebate, the provision for extra depreciation allowance was not withdrawn. The extra depreciation allowance continued to be allowable. The fact that the development rebate was withdrawn did not have the effect of deleting the provision for extra depreciation allowance in sub-item (iii) of Item III of Part-I, of Appendix I of the IT Rules, 1962. 4. The Tribunal has misled itself in holding that the extra depreciation allowance cannot be claimed solely on the ground that the development rebate was withdrawn. The two are independent provisions and the reference made to s. 33 in sub-item (iii) of Item III of Part-I of Appendix-I of the IT Rules is only for the purpose of ensuring that the assessee which makes the claim for extra depreciation allowance had the approval of the Central Government for the purpose of s. 33 of the Act. Admittedly, the approval under the s. 33 in favour of the assessee was inforce. The assessee could not have been denied extra depreciation allowance if it had satisfied other requirements of sub-item (iii) of Item III of Part-I of Appendix-I of the Rules. 5. Admittedly, the approval under the s. 33 in favour of the assessee was inforce. The assessee could not have been denied extra depreciation allowance if it had satisfied other requirements of sub-item (iii) of Item III of Part-I of Appendix-I of the Rules. 5. The allowance claimed by the assessee was, therefore, allowable as it had the approval of the Central Government through the Department of Tourism under s. 33 of the Act and had satisfied other requirements of sub-item (iii) of Item III of Part-I of Appendix I of the Rules. 6. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 750.