2017 (4) TMI 1335 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(37) - amendment to the income tax act has been made w.e.f. 01/04/2004 and whereas the land has been transferred by the assessee prior to that date - Held that - As relying on case of Chura Ram versus ITO 2010 (9) TMI 411 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH the provisions of section 10 (37) are applicable to the impugned amount received by the assessee during the year and thereby such sums received by the assessee is exempt. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in granting exemption to the assessee under the provisions of section 10 (37) to the impugned sum of ₹ 8081704/ hence we confirm the same. Whether CIT appeal has granted exemption with respect of the gair Mumkin land as agricultural land without appreciating the facts of the case? - Held that - In the present case the gair Mumkin land has been certified by the revenue authorities as agricultural land. As certified by the Patwari concerned that the Gair mumKin land is an agricultural land is where there were Wells, water channels and water storage tank. These land abuts the land where cultivation is carried out and is contagious on it. No cultivation can be carried out without having these necessities. Hence the gair Mumkin land also falls within the ambit of agricultural land and therefore entitled to the benefit of section 10 (37) of the act. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(37) and deletion of addition under long term capital gain.
2. Treatment of Gair Mumkin land as agricultural land.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The primary issue raised by the revenue was the allowance of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(37) and deletion of the addition made under long term capital gain. The assessee, an individual, had received compensation for the acquisition of land by the Haryana urban development authority. The assessing officer denied the deduction under section 10(37) citing the amendment made w.e.f. 01/04/2004, while the CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that the exemption is not limited to acquisitions post that date. The ITAT Delhi, citing a previous decision, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and confirming the exemption granted under section 10(37) for the compensation received.

2. The second ground of appeal involved the treatment of Gair Mumkin land as agricultural land. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in granting exemption without appreciating the facts of the case. However, the ITAT Delhi noted that the Gair Mumkin land was certified by revenue authorities as agricultural land, supported by evidence of Wells, water channels, and water storage tanks, indicating its agricultural nature. As the revenue authorities had confirmed the land's agricultural status, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this ground as well.

In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the exemption granted to the assessee under section 10(37) and upholding the treatment of Gair Mumkin land as agricultural land.