Cit Vs. Brihan Maharashtra Steel Industries (P) Ltd.

counsels: r.v. desai and j.p. deodhar, for the revenue pankaj p. toprani, for the assessee in the bombay high court s.h. kapadia & j.n. patel, jj. - bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. kapadia, j.the short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the assessing officer was justified in making adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by computing deduction under section 80hhc by reducing the profits on account of deduction admissible under section 32a of the act section 80hhc of the act has undergone several changes. this section has been debated in various decisions of the tribunal. in fact, a special bench of the tribunal was required to be constituted to interpret the changes in the said section. under the above circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) by computing the deduction under section 80hhc after reducing the profits on account of the deduction admissible under section 32a. in the circumstances, the tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that section 143(1)(a) cannot be invoked by the assessing officer. the assessing officer was free to invoke the provisions of section 143(2)/(3) and proceed by way of regular assessment.2. hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.