JUDGMENT 1. This reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court, arising out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 771/JP/86, dated October 27, 1987, for the assessment year 1983-84 on the following question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the compressor at 30 per cent." 2. The assessee filed its return and claimed depreciation on the compressor at 30 per cent. being used in mines and quarries. The Income-tax Officer allowed 10 per cent. depreciation holding that under the Income-tax Rules, no such rate has been prescribed in respect of this item of machinery. Appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. Further appeal was preferred before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in CIT v. Smt. Urmila Goel (1986) 52 CTR 276 (Delhi) allowed 30 per cent. depreciation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment of the Delhi High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case as the air-conditioner considered by the Delhi High Court was fitted in the bus. The compressor here in this case is used for drilling and mining. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is not directly applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, to make his point, had drawn our attention on Appendix I, appended to the Income-tax Rules and has relied upon entry No. 8, which reads as under : " Mines and Quarries-Portable underground machinery and earth moving machinery used in open cast mining (NESA). 6. It is evident from the aforesaid entry that if the compressor is used for mining and quarries, depreciation has to be allowed to the extent of 30 per cent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no rebuttal to it. He has disputed it by submitting that it can be allowed only if it has been claimed by the assessee under this head. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no rebuttal to it. He has disputed it by submitting that it can be allowed only if it has been claimed by the assessee under this head. Record possessed by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not spell out whether in the assessment, it has been claimed under this particular entry. If, in the assessment, the assessee has claimed depreciation under entry No. 8, as stated above, the assessee in that event is entitled to the depreciation at 30 per cent. 7. We answer the reference accordingly and the matter is remanded to the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the matter accordingly as observed above, after examining the record. *******