N.N.MATHUR, J. - (1.) IN spite of service, respondent-assessee has chosen not to appear.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue. This reference application is at the instance of the Revenue seeking reference on the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact in the quoted by the Tribunal, i.e., CIT vs. Popular Borewell Service and Ors. (1991) 94 CTR (Mad) 240 : (1992) 194 ITR 12 (Mad) : TC 27R.434, the Madras High Court had held that depreciation of 30 per cent was not allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells, the Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation @ 30 per cent was allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells ?"
(3.) THE said question has been answered by the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Bhola Ram (D.B. IT Ref. No. 118/1995) decided on 11th May, 2002 [reported at (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 82-Ed.]. Since the question has been answered by this Court, it is not necessary to undergo the formality of calling the reference from the Tribunal.;