BALASUBRAHMANYAN J.

The Standard Motor Products of India Ltd., Madras, which is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of automobiles, is the assessee. The assessee has its factory at Vandalur. In the factory premises the assessee has certain buildings used for office purposes called the administrative block. Besides, the assessee has a canteen, a fire service station, pump house, overhead tanks and wells, overhead lines and street lights, new stores, co-operative stores building and industrial housing colony. The assessee has in its factory two types of machinery categorised as general purpose machinery and precision machinery. Originally, the assessments for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64 were completed. In the said assessment proceedings, the ITO allowed depreciation allowance in respect of the administrative buildings at 5%. As regards precision machinery, the ITO allowed depreciation allowance at the rate of 12% and the general purpose machinery at the rate of 10%. During the assessment proceedings for the year 1965-66, the ITO discovered that the assessee bad claimed and obtained excess depreciation in respect of administrative buildings. He, therefore, reopened the assessments under s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (called "the Act"). In the reassessment proceedings the ITO held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of the administrative buildings only at the rate of 2 1/2% and not at the rate of 5% originally allowed on the ground that the administrative buildings formed part of the factory buildings. Though the assessment was reopened under s. 147(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained depreciation allowance in respect of administrative buildings, in the reassessment proceedings the ITO also noticed that the assessee was not entitled to 10% depreciation allowance in respect of general purpose machinery. He accordingly restricted depreciation allowance in respect of general purpose machinery to 7% as against 10% originally granted. The income of the assessee was recomputed on the above basis. For the assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71, the ITO allowed depreciation allowance in respect of administrative buildings at 2 1/2% and for the general purpose machinery at 7% in the original assessments themselves. The assessee then preferred appeals to the AAC, C-Range, Madras. Before the AAC it was contended, among others, that the ITO acted in excess of his jurisdiction in reopening the assessments under s. 147(a) of the Act. On the merits, the AAC upheld the rate of depreciation of 2 1/2% fixed by the ITO in respect of buildings other than latrines, compound walls and workers' gate. In respect of the latter, the AAC held that they were liable to be treated as second class buildings and depreciation allowance granted accordingly. As respects general purpose machinery, the AAC upheld the rate of 7% depreciation allowance fixed by the ITO. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. All the appeals for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64 and 1965-66 to 1970-71 were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated 26th October, 1974. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the assessee that the reopening of the assessments for the years 1961-62 to 1963-64 was without jurisdiction. In respect of administrative buildings, the Tribunal classified the buildings as factory buildings and accordingly held that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation at the rate of 5% as originally granted by the ITO. With regard to the general purpose machinery, the Tribunal found that the assessee would be entitled only at the rate of 7%. However, the Tribunal held that the rate of 7% should be applied only with effect from the assessment years 1965-66 onwards. For the years 1961-62 to 1963-64 the Tribunal held that it would not be open to the ITO to restrict the depreciation allowance to 7% instead of at 10% as origin