JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-This tax case (appeal) is filed by Revenue as against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raising following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, under facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee has satisfied requirement of second proviso to rule 5(1A) of Income-tax Rules, 1962, and they are entitled for depreciation on windmills as per Appendix I is valid? (ii) Whether, under facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80 per cent. on windmills, even though proviso to section 32(1)(i) and rule 5(1A) clearly stipulate that only rate of depreciation on method as provided for in Appendix IA will be relevant for power generating machinery? (iii) Whether, under facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in granting depreciation at 80 per cent. on windmills even though assessee is entitled at rate of 7.69 per cent. of cost and this rate has correctly been allowed by Assessing Officer? (iv) Whether, under facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled for higher rate of depreciation even though assessee had filed return of income within due date and has also not exercised its option separately? (v) Whether based on material available before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it could have come to conclusion that assessee has explained credits to satisfaction of Assessing Officer and, therefore, addition under section 68 is not warranted?" issue involved in this tax case (appeal) is two-fold. first issue relates to claim of depreciation by assessee on installation of windmill, which, according to Revenue, is contrary to rule 5(1A) Appendix IA of Income-tax Rules. Learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue submits that abovesaid issue is covered by decision of this court dated September 9, 2014 made in T. C. (A) Nos. 330 of 2013, etc., batch (CIT v. Kikani Exports P. Ltd. (No. 2) [2014] 369 ITR 500 (Mad)). In abovesaid decision, this court, following decision of Bombay High Court reported in CIT v. Vijaya Hirasa Kalamkar (HUF) [1998] 229 ITR 772 (Bom), held as follows (page 509 of 369 ITR): "A reading of abovesaid decision of Bombay High Court makes it clear that if assessee exercised option in terms of second proviso to rule 5(1A) of Income-tax Rules at time of furnishing of return of income, it will suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation with regard to of exercise of option is required. Since returns are filed in accordance with section 139(1) of Income-tax Act and form prescribed therein make provision for exercising option in respect of claim of depreciation, no separate procedure is required, as contended by Department. We are in agreement with reasoning of Tribunal. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue." Following abovesaid decision of this court, substantial questions of law Nos. 1 to 4 are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. second issue relates to additions made under section 68 of Income-tax Act on account of unexplained cash credit. assessee is company engaged in business of parcel service, Maruti dealership and service station, petrol bunk, wind energy and fettling. For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, assessee claimed expenditure incurred towards construction/renovation of building on leased premises as revenue expenditure. Assessing Officer disallowed same, but allowed 10 per cent. depreciation. Apart from that, Assessing Officer made additions towards unexplained fixed deposits under section 68 of Incometax Act. On appeal, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after analysing documents filed by assessee, allowed appeal filed by assessee, which was confirmed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal, after perusing order of Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), agreed with contention of assessee and held in favour of assessee. For better clarity, relevant portion of order of Tribunal reads as follows (see [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 634, 643): "The second ground of appeal of Revenue is with regard to addition made under section 68 of Act on account of unexplained cash credit. perusal of paragraph 13 of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) shows that during course of appellate proceedings, assessee was able to produce documents and details of repayment made through cheque. Even bank confirmations were filed by assessee before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) showing that cheques issued by assessee were encashed by respective parties. assessee had also furnished identity of persons with complete details of addresses and FD applications showing details. After satisfying himself with documents, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed ground of appeal of assessee. Departmental Representative could not controvert findings of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with findings of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. No other issue has been raised in this appeal of Revenue. Since both issues are decided against Revenue, appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed being devoid of merit." We have perused order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On facts, it is evident that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has gone into every details of payments and held in favour of assessee. On basis of documents and details, which were supported by records, identity of persons, who have entered into transaction, has also been verified and found to be correct. Being pure question of fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with order of Tribunal. We find no merit in this Tax Case (Appeal). Accordingly, this Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. ABT Ltd.