JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') by which, the assessee's appeal was allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts within the precincts of the questions canvassed before this court are that the assessment of the respondent-assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 was completed on 03.08.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation to the tune of ' 12,03,668/-, as claimed by the assessee on dumper and Volvo, inter alia, observing that the higher rate of depreciation (30%) was not permissible, as the assessee had his own mining business also. 3. Against the disallowance of the depreciation aforesaid, the assessee filed an appeal which came to be rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Authority"), vide his order dated 13.12.2016. The Appellate Authority repelled the assessee's contention and affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in confining the claim of the depreciation. He, however, additionally observed that the higher rate of depreciation was applicable only for motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies used in the business of renting them on hire. 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed, vide the order impugned. The learned Members of the Tribunal, while relying upon various judicial pronouncements held that the expression 'motor lorry' used in the Appendix-1 includes 'dumper' and the 'Volvo Machines' also. 5. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the appellant questioning the legality of the order under challenge, contended that the assessee has his own mining business and the subject dumper and Volvo were used by the assessee in his own business, for which, he is not entitled for higher rate of depreciation, as claimed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the impugned order dated 14.09.2017, we are of the firm view that neither any substantial question of law arises for our consideration nor does the order suffer from any infirmity. 7. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the impugned order dated 14.09.2017, we are of the firm view that neither any substantial question of law arises for our consideration nor does the order suffer from any infirmity. 7. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities below have found, as a matter of fact, that the subject motor vehicles were used by the assessee for his own mining purposes as well as getting rent by giving them on hire. 8. Contention of Mr. Bissa, that with a view to claim higher rate of depreciation, the vehicles should be exclusively used on hire and reward, cannot be accepted. The language used in Item No. (iii) of Appendix-1 to the Rules do not make it obligatory for the assessee to use vehicles/machines exclusively for hire and reward. For ready reference, the relevant excerpts of the Rules is quoted here-in-below:- "III. Machinery and Plant (1) Machinery and plant other than those covered by sub-items (2), (3) and (8) below: (2) Motor cars, other than those used in a business of running them on hire, acquired or put to use on or after the 1st day of April, 1990 (3) (i) ................................ (ii) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire (iii) Commercial vehicle which is acquired by the assessee on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, but before the 1st day of April, 1999 and is put to use for any period before the 1st day of April, 1999 for the purposes of business or profession in accordance with the third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 [See Note 6 below this Table]" 9. It is not in dispute that the assessee has earned rental income from these vehicles. The requirement of the provision stands satisfied, in wake of such finding recorded by none other than the Assessing Officer himself. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has tried to non-suit the assessee on the ground that the subject dumper and Volvo do not fall within the expression of motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, as provided in Entry No. Ill (3)(ii) of Part-A of Appendix-1. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has tried to non-suit the assessee on the ground that the subject dumper and Volvo do not fall within the expression of motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, as provided in Entry No. Ill (3)(ii) of Part-A of Appendix-1. It is pertinent to note that the depreciation for motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies has been provided under the Head-Ill Machinery and Plant, wherein Clause (ii) of Entry No.Ill (3) deals with the motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, while Clause 3(iii) concerns with commercial vehicles. As such, if the vehicles in question are not held to be falling in subclause (ii) of Clause (3), they would well fall in sub-Clause (iii) of the Clause 3 of Entruy No. III of Appendix-1, entailing even higher rate of depreciation to the assessee. 11. The expression used in sub-clause (ii), namely motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies is having wide amplitude and the term motor lorries used therein, would take in its sweep the subject vehicles, i.e., dumper and Volvo. 12. In view of the above discussion and in view of the finding as recorded by the Assessing Officer himself, that the vehicles in question were used for hire purposes, the assessee cannot be denied depreciation @ 30%. The appeal, therefore, fails.