Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1268 - AT - Income TaxClaim of exemption u/s 10(37) - Addition of long term capital gains - treating assessee’s agricultural income under the head “other” sources - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We reiterate that the assessee’s land is situated within the Surat municipal corporation limits u/s 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act. The Revenue strongly relies upon the Assessing Officer’s finding denying the assessee exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. This section reveals that there are four conditions to claim exemption i.e. the land has to be situated in an area referred to under section 2(14) (iii)(a) or (b). Such a land is to be used for agricultural purposes during the period of two immediately preceding years. The third one is that the transfer in question has to be by way of compulsory acquisition. The fourth and last condition is that such a transfer is on or after 1.4.2004. The assessee duly fulfils the first condition as the land is well within municipal limits. Coming to land’s use during the immediately preceding two years, we find that the revenue record form 7/12 as relied upon in the lower appellate proceedings forming part of record contains all details of the crops sown since financial year 2003-04. We deem it proper to observe that the same is public record prepared by agrarian authorities under respective land and tenancy laws which cannot be brushed aside without any specific evidence to the contrary. There is no such evidence much less a specific one forthcoming. Therefore, the assessee satisfies the second stipulation as well. Now we come to Assessing Officer’s objection that the land is not transferred under compulsory acquisition. The case record file states purpose of the sale deed to be a sewerage treatment plant. The Revenue does not point any infirmity therein. Therefore, this argument also fails. The fourth condition of the transfer effected on 28.3.2010 is automatically satisfied since the same is after 1.10.2004. It is also to be seen from the case file that assessee led sufficient oral evidence of the concerned panchas in favour of his plea of having cultivated the land. The TDS deduction form is not in order since it categorized assessee’s payment to be contractor bill in spite of the fact that it pertains to land transfer. The assessee’s three other co-owners namely – Smt. Mayuriben, Rekhaben and Geetaben have already been granted section 10(37) exemption in question. The Revenue fails to rebut all the above stated facts on record. We accordingly reject its both arguments on the issue of the impugned capital gains and agricultural income. The CIT(A)’s order stands upheld. - Decided against revenue.
|