Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. The tax revision cases arise from the orders of the Tribunal disposing of appeals filed against agricultural income tax assessments for 1987-88 and 1989-90. The first question raised is against assessment of miscellaneous income obtained on sale of unserviceable materials like containers, barrels etc., sold by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer held that the expenditure on purchase of various items were allowed as a deduction and the amount now received by the petitioner represents value received on sale of empty containers and similar items. Therefore, he held that petitioner’s liability towards revenue expenditure for earning agricultural income gets reduced by the amount received by way of miscellaneous income. Accordingly, he set off such income against expenditure and allowed the net expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed this against which assessee has come up with this revision. Even though logically we agree with the reasoning of the Assessing Officer confirmed by the Tribunal, we do not think the virtual assessment of miscellaneous income as agricultural income is permissible under the Agricultural Income Tax Act because there is neither any provision for set off of miscellaneous income against allowable items of expenditure for cultivation nor any provision deeming miscellaneous income as agricultural income justifying assessment under the Act. In fact when the 1950 Act was substituted by the 1991 Act, specific provision Section 4(2)(ii) was introduced in the new Act providing for assessment of such income. Since the assessments involved in these two cases are for 1987-88 and 1989-90, the provisions of the new Act are not applicable and so much so, the disallowance of expenditure in the form of set off of miscellaneous income which amounts to virtual assessment of miscellaneous income as agricultural income sustained by the Tribunal is incorrect. We, therefore, allow the tax revision cases pertaining to this item and order deletion of the amount. 2. The next question raised is against the assessment of 5% of the income earned in the form of interest by the petitioner. The interest earned on deposits were assessed under Central Income Tax Act. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer under the Central Act granted a deduction of 5% towards collection charges of interest. Since 5% was allowed as deduction, the Assessing Officer under the AIT Act assessed the same as agricultural income. The interest earned on deposits were assessed under Central Income Tax Act. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer under the Central Act granted a deduction of 5% towards collection charges of interest. Since 5% was allowed as deduction, the Assessing Officer under the AIT Act assessed the same as agricultural income. What is allowed as a deduction by the Central Income Tax Officer is not agricultural income assessable under the AIT Act. Since amount allowed as deduction under the Central Income Tax is also interest and the deduction was granted only to meet cost of recovery, we do not think the said amount considered for assessment under the Central Income Tax Act can be assessed under the AIT Act. Moreover, the 5% allowed by the Central Income Tax Officer was from the interest income earned which does not form part of agricultural income. We, therefore, allow the tax revision cases on this issue also by modifying the order of the Tribunal with direction to the officer to delete this amount from the computation of agricultural income. 3. The next issue pertains to petitioner’s claim for replanting allowance under Rule 8G of the Agricultural Income Tax Rules prescribed under the 1950 Act. The deduction allowable during the year was 3% of the capital expenditure on replanting. Even though the issue is remanded by the first appellate authority which is confirmed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has raised a question of law pertaining to the observations made by the first appellate authority that expenditure for replanting for proceeding years should not be allowed. Counsel for the petitioner has produced Circular dated 2.7.1992 issued by the then Board of Revenue clarifying that replanting allowance under Rule 8G has to be allowed for the accumulated expenditure incurred for replanting. We, therefore, delete the observation of the first appellate authority confirmed by the Tribunal and direct the officer to apply the Rule and go by the clarification if the same is still valid or otherwise, he is free to ask for clarification from the Government or from the Commissioner. If the petitioner has grievance against modified order issued by the Assessing Officer, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same. The revision cases are therefore allowed to the extent indicated above.