Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case referred under S. 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The respondent who is the assessee is a registered firm running a hotel at Secunderabad with branches at Sultan Bazar and King Kothi in Hyderabad. During the previous year ending 30th September, 1959 relating to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 57,154/- in installing sanitary fittings and of Rs. 1,370/- for pipe-line fittings. The assessee claimed development rebate on these two items at the rate of 25 per cent under S. 10 (2) (vi-b) of the Act amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 14,639/-. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the disallowance. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal holding that the definition of "plant" must necessarily be the same, whether it was for claiming depreciation under S. 10 (2) x(vi) or for development rebate under S. 10 (2) (vi-b). Accordingly, it was held that the sanitary and pipe-line fittings did not fall