JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.— This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30th January 2009 passed in ITA No. 401/Bang/2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-A, Bangalore, for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, a member would purchase corresponding shares and invest corresponding amount in purchase of a Bus, for which it would receive rental every month should be ignored and the registration of the vehicle and the money paid for the construction of the body built on the vehicle and its use should be taken into account for allowing depreciation? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the fact that the Society had been incorporated for the members who were ultimately receiving the benefit and the Society was only acting as an agent and therefore the question of Society claiming depreciation did not arise? 2. The brief facts of the case are, the assessee has filed returns of income before the Assessing Officer on 31.10.2004 for the assessment year 2004-2005. The Assessing Officer has taken up the same for consideration after issuing notice under Section 143(2). In response to the said notice, the assessee was represented through its representative from time to time and furnished all the information. The Assessing Officer, after analyzing the material available on record, has proceeded to pass the order dated 30th November 2006 vide Annexure-C, holding that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the total value of the buses. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority-the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Bangalore, in appeal ITA No. 167/DC4(1) CIT(A)-II:2006-07 for the assessment year 2004-2005, along with other appeals for the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority-the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Bangalore, in appeal ITA No. 167/DC4(1) CIT(A)-II:2006-07 for the assessment year 2004-2005, along with other appeals for the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides and after going through the order passed by the Assessing Officer and placing reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court has allowed the appeals in part holding that the assessee is the factual owner of all the buses, who used them in its business in its own right as the owner and therefore, he is entitled to depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation while computing the income with regard to all the three assessment years vide Annexure-B dated 26.12.2007. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-A, Bangalore, ('Tribunal' for short) in ITA No. 401/BANG/2008 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 along with other appeals for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The said matters came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after going through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and First Appellate Authority and after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue vide Annexure-A dated 30th January 2009 by upholding the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the revenue herein has presented this appeal for the assessment year 2004-2005, raising the aforesaid substantial questions of law along with other reliefs. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent at considerable length of time. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, we do not find any error, much less material irregularity committed by both the authorities in passing the said orders. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, we do not find any error, much less material irregularity committed by both the authorities in passing the said orders. As a matter of fact, the First Appellate Authority after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties, has passed the said order holding that, the assessee is the factual owner of all the buses, who used them in its business in its own right as the owner and the buses were registered in the name of the assessee and therefore, he is entitled to depreciation for the value of the buses and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation while computing the income with regarded to all the assessments years. The said order has been confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated 30thJanuary 2009 in ITA No. 401/Bang/2008 vide Annexure-A. Both the authorities after considering the materials on record have recorded concurrent finding of fact by assigning cogent reasons and the same is in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, we do not find any justification or good grounds made out by the revenue to interfere in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment. Even the appellants have not made out any substantial question of law to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal is answered against the revenue.