9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant : Mr. S. L. Poddar with Mr. N. L. Agarwal For the Respondent : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditiya Vijay JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department and assessee s C.O. has been dismissed. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 31.01.2017 framed the following questions of law:- (i) Whether the Ld. ITAT was justified under law while reversing the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of granting of relief of ₹ 56,94,231/- exemption u/s 10 (37) of the Act of 1961 by considering the Khasra Girdavari Report dated 05.12.2011 integral part of the order of Assessment as Annexure-A not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il, 2004. It may be noted in this connection that exemption is available only if compulsory acquisition has taken place on or after 1-4-2004. Exemption is also available if acquisition has taken place before 1-4-2004 but compensation has been received on or after 1-4-2004. For the purposes of this clause, the expression, compensation or consideration includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, tribunal or other authority. 4. He contended that this is the only condition which was not fulfilled by the appellant therefore, the same is required to be viewed closely. He contended that the land was acquired on 4th July, 2008 therefore, the agricultural use is to be considered as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 197 Kua in the name of Shri Ramkishor e Agarwal Kua Kua Kua 5. He further contended that Tribunal has seriously committed an error in not considering the earlier year namely, financial Year 2005-06 Samvat 2062-63 and has considered the agricultural income. He contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in reversing the view taken by the CIT(A) and has relied upon observation made by CIT(A) and contended that CIT(A) while considering the matter has rightly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal wherein it has been observed as under:- 7. We have he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and he openly accepted that this certificate was given by him at the behest of the assessee. He did not know the exact land of the assessee where situated. Therefore,we have considered view that the assessee s claim proportionately allowed by the ld CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and the revenue s appeal is allowed on this ground. 11. At the outset the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld Assessing Officer estimated the household without any basis and brought on record contrary evidence. He relied on the decision of Hon ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Dr. Anand Chabra 37 Tax World 72 wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer has not given any basis for est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not at all clear that for both the years the appellant was carrying out agricultural activity in the land in question. The Tribunal has further examined the issue and held that if at all there was any agricultural activity being carried on by the appellant in the previous two years, some accounts with regard to expenditure made by the appellant for sowing the crops and also revenue generated by selling the agricultural produce would have been submitted by the assessee, which has not been done by him. The same is also a strong ground for not accepting that the appellant was carrying on agricultural activity on the plot in question. 8. Clear findings of fact have been recorded by all the three authorities, which in our view, do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
