Kesri K. Deboo Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. 1. the present appeal is directed against the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal dated september 8, 2004, vide which the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. impugning the order of the tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the circular issued by the central board of direct taxes dated march 10, 2003, submits that the following question of law arises for consideration:whether the income tax appellate tribunal is justified in law confirming the action of the assessing officer in making an addition of rs. 35 lakhs merely relying on the statement recorded under section 132(4) which was subsequently retracted?2. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order of the tribunal, we are of the considered view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration of the court. the circular issued by the central board of direct taxes is primarily an advise given where it was advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the income-tax department. this is primarily the matter of appreciation of facts and would depend on the facts and evidence on record in a given case.3. in the present case, the tribunal affirmed the finding of the assessing officer that the assessee had unaccounted income of rs. 35 lakhs and the search and seizure operation conducted in the premises of the persons who are closely related to the assessee in the business revealed transaction reflecting the undisclosed income. no merit. dismissed.