JUDGMENT Mutum BK. Singh, J. 1. These appeals are directed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati relating to the income of the respondent, assessee for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92. These batch of appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment as same substantial question of law is involved in all the cases. 2. The facts essential for disposal of these appeals are, in brief, that the respondent is a company carrying on the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and a regular taxpayer. The respondent filed returns for every assessment year mentioned above but the Income Tax Officer refused to accept the taxable income shown by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income of the respondent higher than the total income reflected in the returns. Being dissatisfied by the assessment order of the ITO, the respondent took the matter before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Pending adjudication of the appeals, the assessee raised additional grounds contending that the Assessing Officer committed an error in determining the opening written down value of the block assets of the assessee. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer determined the opening written down value of the block of assets without following the provisions of Section 43(6) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act') and Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) allowed to raise the additional point but rejected the same by following his own decision passed respecting the assessment year 1987-88 of the assessee. The assessee took the matter again before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati. The Appellate Tribunal following a decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Suman Tea and Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. reported in 2004 ITR 719, accepted the appeals filed by the assessee vide order dated 6.8.2003. Hence, these appeals. The assessee took the matter again before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati. The Appellate Tribunal following a decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Suman Tea and Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. reported in 2004 ITR 719, accepted the appeals filed by the assessee vide order dated 6.8.2003. Hence, these appeals. The appeals are admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law - (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a correct interpretation of Section 43(6) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of computing the written down value of depreciable assets used in tea business only 40 per cent, instead of 100 per cent of depreciation allowable at the prescribed rate should have to be deducted in the assessee's case ? 3. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. A.K. Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Income Tax Tribunal has committed an error in holding that only 40% of the depreciation has to be deducted while determining the written down value of depreciable assets used in tea business. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the Calcutta High Court has not laid down the correct legal proposition while passing the order in Suman Tea and Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra). Learned Counsel supporting the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) further contended that the taxable income of the assessee has to be determined as per the provision of the Income Tax Act and that the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee were 100% at the composite total income of the assessee and thereafter it is to be apportioned as per Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The submission of the learned Counsel shows that the main issue involved in these cases is the method of determination of the written down value of the depreciable assets. The submission of the learned Counsel shows that the main issue involved in these cases is the method of determination of the written down value of the depreciable assets. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that the written down value of the depreciable assets of the assessee company has to be determined by deducting from the cost only 40% of the depreciation actually allowed at the prescribed rate. As per Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 40% of the total income of the assessee dealing in tea business are chargeable to Income Tax. The learned Counsel put forward his submission stating that the 40% of the composite income is only taxable income of the assessee in view of the provision of above rule and, thus, 40% is only actually allowed towards depreciation of the depreciable assets. As regards the words "actually allowed", the learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in CIT v. Nandalal Bhandari Mills Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 173(SC), CIT v. Straw Products Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 156(SC) (SO and Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 209(SC). In Nandalal Bhandari's case (supra), the Apex Court held that the portion of the depreciation which entered into the computation of income taxable under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, was depreciation which had been actually allowed. When 40% of the total income is taxable income, the depreciation actually allowed is only 40% of the depreciation though while computing the composite income, 100% depreciation was allowed. Following the observations laid down in the above Apex Court cases, the meaning of the expression "actually allowed" has been interpreted as follows - The pivot of the definition of 'written down value' is the 'actual cost' of the assets. Where the asset was acquired and also used for the business in the previous year, such value would be its full actual cost and depreciation for that year would be allowed at the prescribed rate on such cost. In the subsequent year, depreciation would be calculated on the basis of actual cost less depreciation actually allowed. The key word in Clause (b) is 'actually'. It is the antithesis of that which is merely speculative, theoretical or imaginary. 'Actually' contra-indicates a deeming construction of the word 'allowed' which it qualifies. In the subsequent year, depreciation would be calculated on the basis of actual cost less depreciation actually allowed. The key word in Clause (b) is 'actually'. It is the antithesis of that which is merely speculative, theoretical or imaginary. 'Actually' contra-indicates a deeming construction of the word 'allowed' which it qualifies. The connotation of the phrase 'actually allowed' is, thus, limited to depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income Tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee ; it cannot be stretched to mean 'nationally allowed' or merely allowable on a national basis. 5. In view of the above observations made by the hon'ble Apex Court and following the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel of the assessee respondent, we are of the considered view that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that for the purpose of determining the written down value of the block of depreciable assets used in tea business, only 40% of depreciation actually allowed at the prescribed rate are to be deducted. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 7. In the result, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6.8.2003 is upheld and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent. The appeals stand dismissed. No cost. In favour of Assessee.