only question for consideration in this appeal is, whether assessee is entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent on rigs and compressors which are mounted on lorry and used for drilling borewells. 2. assessee-firm carries on business of drilling borewells. In course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1978-79, assessee claimed depreciation at 30 per cent on rigs and compressors under Item No. III (ii), D (9) of Part I of Appendix I to Income-tax Rules, 1962 on ground that they constituted intogoal part of lorry on which they were mounted and were also worked by same engine which provided traction to vehicle. ITO rejected this claim of assessee. However, on appeal, AAC following decision of Tribunal in case of assessee for assessment year 1979-80 in Popular Borewell Service [IT Appeal No. 151 (Mad.) of 1983], accepted claim of assessee and held that it was entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent on rigs and compressors. Aggrieved by order of AAC, department has filed present appeal. 3. After going through record and hearing learned representatives of parties, we do not find any substance in this appeal. impugned order of AAC is supported by view consistently taken by Tribunal in such cases. details of some of cases are Popular Borewell Service's case (supra), Bharat Rig Service [IT Appeal No. 1427 (Mad) of 1980], O. P. Palaniappan [IT Appeal No. 1279 (Mad.) of 1981], Tiruchengode Borewell Service [IT Appeal No. 935 (Mad.) of 1981], Bharat Rig Service [IT Appeal No. 76 and 2536 (Mad.) of 1983] and E. R. P. Rangaswami [IT Appeal No. 544 (Mad.) of 1983]. It would be evident from decisions referred to above, that Tribunal has been uniformly taking view that assessee is entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent on rigs and compressors used in business of drilling borewells on ground that they constitute integral part of lorry on which they were mounted. There is no good reason to take different view on point at issue in present case when facts are identical. It has been held by Madras High Court in case of CIT v. S. Devaraj [1969] 73 ITR 1 that it would be only proper and desirable that when Tribunal takes particular view, it should not contradict itself and come to diametrically opposite view later on same issue. To same effect is view of Madras High Court in case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi [1977] 110 ITR 453. According to this authority, if Bench of Tribunal on identical facts is allowed to come to conclusion directly opposed to conclusion reached by another Bench of Tribunal on earlier occasion, that will be destructive of institutional integrity itself. In view of these authorities, we are of opinion that final decision on point involved in present case should be left to High Court. So far as Tribunal is concerned it should stick to same view in order to avoid confusion and multiplicity of litigation. 4. representative of department has referred to decision of learned Third Member in case of ITO v. Sivam & Co. [1984] 10 ITD 799 (Mad.) and urges that assessee is not entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent. In our opinion, decision of Third Member in aforesaid case would not warrant change in view consistently taken by us. perusal of this decision would show that Third Member of Tribunal was not concerned with question of grant of depreciation at 30 per cent on rigs and compressors mounted on lorry and used for drilling borewells. It is clearly mentioned in order of Third Member that there was no dispute between members as to grant of depreciation at 30 per cent. dispute related only to grant of investment allowance under section 32A (2) (b) of Income-tax Act, 1961. This would be evident from question referred to Third Member as produced below: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, assessee (being held to be entitled to depreciation at special rate of 30 per cent prescribed for motor lorries, on drilling rigs and compressors used in assessee's business of sinking borewells) is also entitled to investment allowance under section 32A (2) (b) in respect of above items of machinery?" (p. 808) Thus, decision of Third Member to effect that investment allowance should be allowed on rigs and compressors and not on lorry should be restricted only to point at issue before him. observation of learned Third Member to effect that it would be proper, therefore, if depreciation is granted only on last item (i.e., lorry) as lorry, and at general rate on other two items (i.e., rigs and compressors) is mere obiter dictum and so, this observation cannot be followed in preference to string of decisions of Division Benches of Tribunal in cases referred to above. We, therefore, hold that view uniformly taken by Tribunal in such cases should not be disturbed till some High Court takes contrary view in matter. 5. In view of above discussion, we confirm impugned order of AAC. 6. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER v. POPULAR BOREWELL SERVICE