9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land for a sewerage treatment plant. The consideration money reads Rs. 5,94,36,000/-. The Surat municipal corporation vender also deducted TDS of Rs. 15 , 15, 173/- under section 194 LA of the Act. The assessee enclosed the said TDS certificate, claimed exemption of the sale deed amount of Rs. 1,42,93,050/- u/s 10(37) including his agricultural income in question of Rs. 1.77 lakhs. 3. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. He received AIR information about the assessee having executed the sale deed in question. He sought for the necessary details i.e. cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981, copy of 7/12 and 8-A revenue documents proving the assessee to be the land holder, income/expenditure account of the agricultural income, purchase and sale bills of seeds, fertilizer and agricultural produce along with working of capital gains arising from the above stated transfer. He also proposed to treat the assessee's agricultural income of Rs. 1.77 lakhs under the head ''other'' sources. 4. The assessee filed his response in return. He pleaded for section 10(37) exemption and inter alia submitted the land to be situated within Surat municipal corporation jurisdiction later on transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 10(37) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has disallowed this claim of the appellant mainly for three reasons: (i) SMC has made TDS on the payment of amount on the land acquired from the appellant, which proves that it is not an agricultural land. (ii) no evidence has been furnished by the appellant to substantiate his claim that land in question was used for agricultural activity during two preceding years, and (iii) the appellant has not furnished copy of sale bills of crop sold, bills and vouchers of expenditure incurred on such ricultural activity to prove that he has cultivated the agricultural land. 4.3 The second and third reason given by the Assessing Officer being overlapping is more or less identical. 4.4 The appellant's submission, on the other hand, is that he has furnished copy of 7/12 Utara, which evidences cultivation of Uowar' on the land in the preceding two years; he has filed copy of Panchnama confirming the fact by the. Panchas before the TalatiMojeDindoli that on the impugned land Mowar' rind 'Tuar 'was cultivated by him; and he has filed confirmation from as many as nine individuals from the village Dindoli confirming that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring course of assessment proceedings I find that the said document records complete details ol crop grown during the Financial Years 2003-04, 2004-05 , 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. In all the above years, the crop grown has been shown as 'Jowar'. The above document is in respect of survey no. 192 and Block no 305, of village Dindoli, Surat City and also records the names of the agriculturists; Geetaben Janakbhai Chokhawala, Dipakbhai Kslidasbhai Pauwala, Rekhnben Champaklnl Dalai and Mayuriben Asiitbhai Bookseller from the years 2003-04 to 2009-10. I also find that the Assessing Officer has simply rejected this document without carrying out any verification or inquiry from the Nayab Mamlatdar, City Taluka, Surat, who has issued this document. One of the reasons given for rejecting this document by the Assessing Officer is that the appellant has failed to furnish copy of purchase bills of seeds and other agricultural expenses and sale bills of the agricultural produce. This finding of the Assessing Officer is, however, not sustainable for the reason that the appellant is an agriculturist, which fact Assessing Officer has himself recorded in para- 3 of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the SMC. The fourth condition that the income arising from acquisition of such transfer been received by such Assessee on or after 01,04.2004, has not been disputed in the order. The appellant therefore, fulfills all the conditions mentioned u/s 10(37) of the Act. I, accordingly, hold that the compensation received by the appellant towards acquisition of his land by the SMC, is exempt u/s 10(37} of the Act, The first ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed."' 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the case laws. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
