9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivastava, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by : Ms Soumya Singh, Advocate ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2014 in appeal No.143/2013-14 passing by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short CIT(A) ], Rohtak for 2010-11 Assessment Year, the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,61,63,406/- made by the AO under the head Long Term Capital Gains by disallowing exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(37). The Ld CIT(A) deleted this addition without appreciating the facts narrated in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 10(37) of the Act which the AO denied that on two grounds. First one is that according to AO the gair mumkin can be used neither for agricultural nor housing purposes as such it is not qualified u/s 10(37) of the Act. The second ground is that since the land in this case was acquired by the HUDA in the year 1993 and the original compensation was received before 01.04.2004, as such, in view of the fact that section 10(37) of the Act was inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f 01.04.2005, no exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act could be allowed. On this premise, an amount of ₹ 1,61,63,406/- was added back to the income of the assessee. 3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) basing on the certificate issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f original compensation thereby stands out of consideration u/s 10(37) of the Act. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld.AR that wherever the irrigation facilities like wells, water channels, water storage tank is available or the cultivation is going on even the gair mumkin land are classified as agricultural land by the Revenue authorities and that is the reason why basing on the certificate issued by the Revenue Officer, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that the land of the assessee was also an agricultural land inasmuch as cultivation was being carried out in such land which not possible without the presence of the irrigation facilities. Nextly, he submits that in so far as that part of the compensation that was received after 01.04.2004 in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the amount received by the assessee after 01.04.2004 in respect of the gair mumkin lands which the Revenue official certified to be the agricultural lands in view of the irrigation facilities available, and the benefit of section 10(37) of the Act is available in such cases. Further, reliance was placed on Chura Ram vs. ITO [2011] 10 Taxmann.com 34 [Chd.]. ITA No. 3558/Del/2014 7. On a careful consideration of the facts of this case in the light of the observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in the decision referred to above, we are convinced that the reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A is impeccable to grant relief to the assessee and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
