JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Menon J.-The Revenue has proposed following questions as substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that reason to reopen, being incorrect allowance of'terminal' depreciation, which allowance is not allowable under any provision of Act tantamounts to change of opinion? (2) Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case and in law, it is not true that change of opinion is possible only where two views are possible on issue and, therefore, in respect of deduction claim, terminal depreciation in present case, which does not even find mention anywhere in Act as deduction, there is no possibility of two views and, consequently, no question of change of opinion getting imbibed upon reasons recorded for reopening? (3) Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that assessment made under section 147 is bad in law?" In present case, pertaining to assessment year 2005-06, assessee had claimed depreciation on building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and vehicles amounting to Rs. 52,26,638. claim of assessee was described as "terminal depreciation". Assessing Officer was of view that expression "terminal depreciation" is wrong as there is no provision under Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to allow terminal depreciation. He, therefore, disallowed deduction claimed by assessee. He was of view, that in response to notice issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of Act assessee did not turn up for hearing and merely filed letter dated July 9, 2010. Based on material on record, therefore, Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessee could not claim terminal depreciation and disallowed same. In appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), assessee was granted benefits of depreciation claimed. Revenue, being aggrieved, preferred appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal was of view that depreciation claimed by assessee during previous year though described as terminal depreciation could not be disallowed and there was no case for reopening assessment. Tribunal found that Assessing Officer had incorrectly concluded that income amounting to Rs. 52,26,638 had escaped from assessment and observed that Assessing Officer had change of opinion without any tangible material. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar on behalf of Revenue and Mr. Shah on behalf of assessee. They have taken us through proceedings before Tribunal and authorities below. term "depreciation", as ordinarily understood in context of Income-tax Act, 1961, has been considered by hon'ble Supreme Court in case of I. C. D. S. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC); AIR 2013 SC 3037, hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with interpretation of section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961. hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (page 543 of 350 ITR): "Depreciation is monetary equivalent of wear and tear suffered by capital asset that is set aside to facilitate its replacement when asset becomes dysfunctional. In P. K. Badiani v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 642 (SC) this court has observed that allowance for depreciation is to replace value of asset to extent it has depreciated during period of accounting relevant to assessment year and as value has, to that extent, been lost, corresponding allowance for depreciation takes place. Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary (fifth edition) defines'depreciation' to mean, inter alia: 'A fall in value; reduction of worth. deterioration or loss or lessening in value, arising from age, use, and improvements, due to better methods. decline in value of property caused by wear or obsolescence and is usually measured by set formula which reflects these elements over given period of useful life of property... Consistent gradual process of estimating and allocating cost of capital investments over estimated useful life of asset in order to match cost against earnings...'." Applying above interpretation of section 32 of Act in instant case we have no manner of doubt that assessee had in fact claimed depreciation as contemplated under section 32 merely because it was termed as "terminal depreciation" was no reason to disallow claim. Tribunal has relied, and, in our view correctly, upon decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), which held that concept of change of opinion should be used as test to check any abuse of power by Assessing Officer. In our view, test is correctly applied in present case and there was no occasion for Assessing Officer to reopen assessment without any tangible material which formed live link to formation of reason to believe escapement of income. There is nothing to show that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Mere description of depreciation claimed as "terminal depreciation" could not have justified conclusion reached by Assessing Officer. In our view, therefore, no substantial question of law arises in present case. appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd