This is departmental appeal and it is directed against order of Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, dated 16-3-1984, disputing grant of two reliefs, viz., relief of investment allowance under sections 32A and 80J of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on Tug No. IV. Dredging Corporation of India, which is assessee, for first time was incorporated with effect from 29-3-1976 and Government of India transferred 11 dredgers including Tug. No. IV to assessee-corporation but of dredger pool which Transport Ministry had with effect from 31-3-1976 afternoon for being used in its business of dredging operations. first year of business for which income- tax assessment was made was for assessment year 1977-78 and previous year commenced from 31-3-1976 and ended on 31-3-1977. Originally, investment allowance was not granted to 10 out of 11 dredgers transferred in favour of assessee-corporation. So also section 80J relief was not granted to them in original assessment. Subsequently, it came to light that Tug No. IV was acquired by assessee-corporation with effect from 31-3-1976 afternoon itself and was used as such in its business. claim of investment allowance under section 32A would be available to such ships or dredgers acquired from 1- 4-1976 and in respect of ships acquired prior to that date, IAC felt that they were entitled only to initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of Act. IAC held that inasmuch as Tug No. IV was acquired and installed before 1-4- 1976, assessee-corporation was not entitled to investment allowance and said allowance granted in original assessment should be disallowed. assessee-corporation by its letter dated 11-3-1983, on other hand, contended that investment allowance already granted was justified for reasons more than one: (i) It is contended that Government of India transferred ship, with effect from 31-3-1976, same could be used in business with effect from 1-4- 1976 only and it cannot be said that ship was acquired on 31-3-1976 itself pursuant to notification issued by Ministry of Transport. (ii) In case of movables, date of possession was relevant for determining issue of acquisition and in this case possession could be taken not on date of notification of Government of India but date later to it. (iii) Shipping Corporation of India was informed that income earned from 1-4-1976 only should be credited to assessee-corporation and this would clearly show that tug was acquired by assessee, with effect from 1-4-1976, but not on any date earlier to it. However, IAC held in reopened proceedings that Tug No. IV is deemed to have been acquired on date when notification of Government of India was made, i.e., on 13-3-1976 (afternoon). According to him word 'acquired' connotes meaning of proper title conferring all rights in property or ownership rights pursuant to perfected title. assessee- corporation became de jure and de facto owner of Tug No. IV from 31-3- 1976. IAC held that contention that unless possession of asset was taken over, there cannot be said to be any transfer of asset in this case had no basis. He held that it was very difficult to take physical possession of tug wherever it was and, hence, date of transfer should be taken to be date of notification by Government and that date was crucial factor of time at which assessee-corporation acquired ownership of tug. Similarly, argument that income from tug in question was credited to assessee- corporation from 1-4-1976, does not alter date on which assessee became owner, generation of income from asset does not have any relevance for determining date on which asset does not have any relevance for determining date on which asset has been transferred. When deployment particulars of tug in question before April 1976 was asked as clarification by way of telex message was obtained by assessee- corporation, which showed that tug was used by Shipping Corporation of India in its operations from 29-3-1976 to 12-4-1976. From above clarification, IAC felt that tug was second-hand ship at time when it was acquired by assessee and, therefore, learned IAC felt that assessee was not entitled to initiate depreciation or investment allowance. In view of conclusion, learned IAC arrived at, namely, that on date of acquisition, Tug No. IV was second-hand in hands of assessee-corporation, IAC also held that value of such second-hand ship cannot be allowed to enter into capital computation. Therefore, he withdrew section 80J allowance of Rs. 8,58,000 previously granted under section 80J to this corporation. Thus, IAC had completed reopened assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of Act by his reassessment order dated 23-3-1983 relating to assessment year 1977-78. 2. Aggrieved against reassessment order, assessee took up matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). When matter was pending before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee took up additional ground claiming initial depreciation on cost of tug, under section 32(1)(vi). Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), decision of this Tribunal which emanated from original assessment for 1977-78, wherein it was held that dredgers used by Government before their acquisition by assessee- corporation were held to be new dredgers within meaning of Explanation to section 32(1)(vi) was brought to his notice. As per said finding given by Tribunal, it was contended before learned Commissioner (Appeals) that IAC was not justified in rejecting claim of initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) on ground that Tug No. IV was secondhand one, as same was used by Government of India before acquisition by assessee- corporation was no justified. learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this contention and held following finding of this Tribunal that Government does not answer description of 'person' resident in India. He also held that Tug No. IV was not second-hand asset merely because it was used by Shipping Corporation of India at Mangalore Port, from 29-3-1976 to 12-4-1976. learned Commissioner (Appeals) by his letter dated 17-1-1984 elicited information on income earned by crafts used by Shipping Corporation of India for commercial exploitation. Shipping Corporation of India furnished information as per its letter dated 6-2-1984. In said letter, it is stated that dredgers including dredger No. 4 were never used by Shipping Corporation of India for commercial exploitation at any time. dredgers were always owned by Government of India. Only maintenance, management and operation of dredgers was entrusted to Shipping Corporation of India, as per agreement enclosed to letter between Government of India and Shipping Corporation of India. According to terms of agreement, Shipping Corporation of India was collecting charges for dredging work at rate specified by Government and also incurred expenditure in consultation with Government form time to time as agent of Government on its account. Periodical statement of income and expenditure were being furnished to Government of India and Shipping Corporation of India was being paid service charges for services rendered by it. Therefore, under circumstances, Shipping Corporation never used dredgers of Government of India for any commercial exploitation or earned any income in respect of such dredgers. gross income as well as expenditure incurred to earn said income are credited and debited to account of Government of India. service charges received by Shipping Corporation of India are in nature of remuneration for services rendered by acting as agent of Government. From 1-4-1976, Shipping Corporation of India started operating dredgers as agent of assessee-corporation, on same terms and conditions on which it acted as agent to Government of India as advised by Government of India in its letter dated 24-9-1976. description of dredgers which were to be under custody of Shipping Corporation of India and copy of agreement were all furnished at pages 9 to 29. board of directors of assessee-corporation passed resolution on 25-8- 1977. Item No. 12 of agenda which came for discussion before board was as follows: "Agency arrangement with Shipping Corporation of India for operation of MOT crafts during year 1976-77" Following is resolution: "The Board considered agenda Item and noted that agency arrangement came to close with effect from 31st March, 1977. Board accorded post facto approval for terms and conditions of payment under agency arrangement between DCI and SCI for operation of floating crafts of corporation during year 1976-77." copy of resolution is furnished at page 53 of paper compilation filed before us. Accordingly, Shipping Corporation of India operated Tug No. IV from 1-4-1976 and income earned from 1-4-1976 was credited to assessee-corporation whereas income earned before 1-4-1976 was continued to be credited to Government of India. It is no doubt true that under section 32A(2)(a) conditions for granting investment allowance was that new ship or new aircraft should have been acquired after 31-3-1976. learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that important word for which interpretation is needed is word 'acquired'. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary word 'acquired' means: 'gain by oneself' and 'for oneself'; come into possession of. He held that it is matter of fact that assessee- corporation came to possess ship sometime in April, in sense that it has sought to actually run ship under its control somewhere later in month. In letter dated 20-4-1976, Government of India intimated Shipping Corporation of India that 'the income on account of service charges for period 1-4-1976 onwards may not be deposited in Government account but kept separately with Dredging Corporation of India'. learned Commissioner (Appeals) felt that if intention of Government was that it handed over tug on 31st March, it would have clearly stated that income from 31st March should be credited to assessee-corporation. IAC mentioned, inter alia, Tug No. IV was used by Shipping Corporation of India from 29-3-1976 to 12-4-1976 in Mangalore Port. That shows that income from 29th March to 31st March was credited to Government account and income from 1st April onwards was deposited into account of assessee- corporation. According to learned Commissioner (Appeals), this fact conclusively establishes that acquisition or possession of ship by agent of assessee-corporation took place only from 1-4-1976. word 'acquire' according to learned Commissioner (Appeals) means 'possess' and not mere transfer of nominal title by notification. learned Commissioner (Appeals) further found that crucial words under section 32A(1) are 'which is owned by assessee and is wholly used for purposes of business carried on by him". cumulative impact of words italicised only indicates that word 'acquired' in section 32A(2)(a) indicates only possessive ownership and putting ship into use for purposes of business. Both learned Commissioner (Appeals), who decided appeal from original assessment and Tribunal which decided second appeal from original assessment made it clear that previous use of dredgers and tugs in territorial waters did not disqualify assessee from benefit of 'investment allowance'. learned Commissioner (Appeals) presumed that from afternoon of 31st March, Tug No. IV might have been put to use only in territorial waters by Shipping Corporation of India which after 1-4-1976 became agent of assessee-corporation. In this view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) felt that Tug No. IV was acquired only on 1-4-1976 and, therefore, assessee- corporation is entitled to investment allowance. He felt that according to his finding, assessee-corporation was entitled to investment allowance and there is no need to give effect to initial depreciation granted under section 32(1)(vi). He further held that assessee-corporation is automatically entitled to section 80J relief and that IAC is not correct in disallowing said relief. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) by his impugned orders dated 16-3-1984 granted not only investment allowance but also section 80J relief. 3. correctness and legality of grant of these two reliefs by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned orders are being questioned in second appeal before this Tribunal. ground on which revenue disputes correctness of grant of investment allowance under section 32A is as follows: "The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Government of India cannot be considered as person residing in India for purpose of relief under section 32A." On same reason, it also disputed correctness of section 80J relief granted. 4. We have also considered this aspect fully and completely in our previous orders in IT Appeal No. 691 (Hyd.) of 1980 dated 31-10-1983 [Since reported in Dredging Corpn. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1984] 7 ITD 739 (Hyd.)]. learned counsel for assessee Shri B.V. Subramanyam argued before us in appeal that phrase 'person resident in India' is technical phrase on tax statute. He further argued that dictionary meaning cannot be glibly assigned so as to enlarge meaning. Authorities from Maxwell, Craes and Bindra's Interpretation of Statues were cited for our commendation. Contextual rule also pointed out to previous owner being resident assessee, argued learned counsel. Government of India cannot be taken to be 'person' contemplated under Act, inasmuch as, person contemplated under Act should be governed by provision of Act as is evident from test of 'residence' going with it. At page 10 of Law & Practice of Income-tax by Shri Kanga and Palkhivala, it is said that "(The Income-tax) Act does not bind Government; Government can claim immunity in respect of income received by it as well as in respect of its income received on its behalf by Government servant in course of his official duties..." When Act does not bind Government, question of definitions under Act applying to Central Government does not arise. It is significant that section 2(31) of Act includes local authority and every artificial juridical person and not Central Government. If Legislature intended to include Central Government within definition of person, it would have included same along with local authority under definition. We have accepted this argument advanced by learned counsel for assessee-corporation and we hold that we find it difficult to accept argument of revenue could be treated as 'person resident in India'. Ultimately, we held that investment allowance is barred only where purchase is from person resident in India and that Government of India is not person and at any rate such person. purpose of restricting allowance only to purchase of ships from person other than 'person resident in India' is said to avoid grant of such allowance on ship more than once. In other words, it should not be possible for same ship to get allowance more than once by mere change of hands. Prior use in inland waters by itself is no bar. object is obviously to encourage shipping industry. Ultimately, we found 'we, therefore, find that this allowance to assessee even in respect of acquisition from Government of India is quite in accord with intention of statute'. Therefore, we granted investment allowance subject to ITO's satisfaction regarding other conditions like creation of reserve, etc. We also granted section 80J relief and we directed that this claim should be considered afresh. What we have held with regard to other 10 crafts of dredgers which are considered as ships for purposes of investment allowance as well as section 80J relief, equally apply to Tug No. IV which is subject-matter of reassessment and appeal thereunder. We, therefore, hold that in view of our previous order, which we intend to follow while disposing of this appeal, there are no grounds to disallow investment allowance as well as section 80J relief, with regard to Tug No. IV. Both reliefs were correctly granted according to us by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with his order. 5. In result, departmental appeal is dismissed as it is found without substance. *** INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER v. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.