(Hrishikesh Roy, J).

Heard Mr UK Borthakur, the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee. Also heard Mr S Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department on behalf of the respondent.

2. These appeals have been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the I.T. Act’), against the common order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure-D) in the ITA No.4/Gau/2011 and the ITA No.5/Gau/2011 respectively of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby the Appeals preferred by the assessee were dismissed by declaring that the Assessing Officer was justified in re-assessing the tax, for excess claim towards depreciation, since the Gotanagar Truck Terminus (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Truck Terminus’) cannot be considered as a “plant” (deserving 25% depreciation), but it should be treated as a “building” attracting the lower rate of depreciation (10%).

3. The Appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was justifiable material/ reasons to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1