TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No. 211/2015 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2015 - Vineet Saran And Aravind Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K Shrihari, Adv. For the Respondent : By Sri K V Aravind, Adv. ORDER This appeal, which has been filed by the assessee, pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee-appellant is a Class-IV employee in the postal department. He purchased certain land in village Dummannahalli on 27.7.2006. The said land was notified for acquisition under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short the KIAD Act'). The final notification was published on 17.05.2007. Thereafter, on the basis of an agreement entered into on 07.10.2008, the assessee was paid a compensation of ₹ 1,47,48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which was also dismissed on 20.02.2015. Challenging the said orders, this appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Sri K.Shrihari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the record. 4. The moot question for determination in this appeal is with regard to the applicability of Clause (ii) of sub-section (37) of Section 10 of the Act in the facts of the present case. Said provision reads as under: Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included ----- (1) to (36) xx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered by this Court. 5. The Assessing Officer, besides holding that the land in question was not being used for agricultural purpose for the previous two years prior to the transfer, has also held that the land having been purchased by the appellant-assessee on 27.07.2006 and the final acquisition notification having been issued on 17.05.2007, same was in possession of the assessee for less than one year and as such, question of assessee cultivating the land for two consecutive years prior to the compulsory acquisition would not arise. However, the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal did not agree with the reasoning of the Assessing Officer with regard to the assessee being in possession of the land in question for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h contention of learned counsel for the appellant is not worthy of acceptance. 7. Even otherwise, we notice from the records that subsequently certain certificates came to be issued by the revenue authorities in the year 2012 to indicate that there was agricultural crop of Jowar on the plot in the year 2005-06 as well as 2006-07 and in the year 2007-08. The revenue records produced by the assessee before the authorities also indicated that there was plantation of Eucalyptus saplings. Thus, even on facts, records are inconsistent or contrary to each other that there was plantation of Eucalyptus saplings. What is to be considered is that for being granted benefit under sub-section (37) of Section 10 of the Act, the land in question should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
