9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) ] dated 19.11.2015 for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: [1] Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by A.O. of ₹ 6,04,00,0007- on account of rejecting the claim of Exemption Under section. 10(37) of the IT Act. [2] Whether purchase of land by SMC from the assessee through registered deed after thorough negotiation and without invoking Provision of Section 78 of the Guj. (Bombay) Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 is treated as compensation or consideration comes under the Purview of eligible exemption Under section.10(37) of the IT Act. [3] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. [4] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT (A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for assessment year (AY) 2008-09 on 30.03.2009 declaring the total income ₹ 1,31,558/-. In this case, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter negotiating the rate. The AO disallowed exemption under section10 (37) and brought the entire said consideration for taxation. 4. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of AO was reversed by passing the following order:- 6.1.1 I have considered the assessment order as well as the submissions of the appellant. The Grounds of appeal- Ground No. 1 2 pertains to rejecting the claim of exemption under section 10(37) and It is therefore prayed that the above action of the Id. AO be quashed and he be directed to allow the exemption under section 10(37) as claimed by the appellant. On the basis of the information received from departmental sources, the AO found that the Surat Municipal Corporation has purchased a land at Dindoli, Surat from land owners for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant. The appellant had sold land for ₹ 6,04,00,000/- on 19.03.2008 to Surat Municipal Corporation and the AO held this land to be capital asset and therefore reopened the assessment under section 147 r.w.s, 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO held that the sale of the transfer of this land was signed between Surat Municipal Corporation and the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before us. 6. We have heard the submission of ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and the Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee have gone through the order of the lower authorities. At the outset of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in case of Satishbhai M Patel, in ITA No.1566/Ahd/2016 dated 13.12.2019, wherein in the Tribunal adjudicated similar appeals filed by other 23 land holders of village Dindoli, whose land were also acquired for the Sewage Treatment Plant by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC). The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that the Tribunal while granting relief followed the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Dipak Kalidas Pauwala, in Tax Appeal No. 249 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016, wherein the Hon'ble High Court affirm the order of Tribunal in the case of Dipak Kalidas Pauwala in ITA No.2685/AHD/2011 for the AY.2008-09 dated 14.08.2015. The ld. AR of the assessee also furnished the copy of order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been clearly mentioned by the SMC that nature of payment was compulsory acquisition (Land/ Building).It is further seen from the perusal of letter no. TBT/OUT/ 4089/ 22 dated. 23.09.2014that land in question was placed under reservation by the Government of Gujarat vide order dated Notification No. GH/V/100 of 2004/DVP/1403/3307/L dated. 02.09.2014 under the provision of section 20 of Gujarat Town Planning Urban Development Act 1976 at the disposal of the SMC to acquire the land under section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 for erection of Sewerage Treatment Plant. Thus, it was a case of compulsory acquisition of land for which the SMC under the instruction of Government of Gujarat for which the SMC has also given a certificate dated 12.08.2010 [letter no.ACT/SR/NO2861] wherein nature of payment to the assessee is described against compulsory acquisition of land at Dindoli. The ITAT- D- Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of ITO v. Dipak Kalidas Pauwala in I.T.A.No.2685/Ahd/2011 dated. 14.08.2015 wherein the Tribunal has held the that said land in Dindoli ( at Block no. 305) was acquired by SMC for sewerage Treatment Plant are agricultural land which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsation and to decide as to whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper or not. However, the matter thereafter is only for quantum of compensation which has nothing to do with the acquisition. It is clear from the above that insofar as acquisition is concerned, the appellant had succumbed to the action taken by the Government in this behalf. His only objection was to the market value of the land that was fixed as above. To reiterate his grievance, the appellant, could have either taken the aforesaid adjudicatory route of seeking reference under Section 18 of the LA Act leaving it to the Court to determine the market value. Instead, the appellant negotiated with Techno Park and arrived at amicable settlement by agreeing to receive the compensation in the sum of ₹ 38,42,489/-. For this I purpose, after entering into the agreement, the appellant agreed to execute the sale deed as well which was a necessary consequence and a step which the appellant had to take. In our view, insofar as acquisition of the land is concerned, the same was compulsorily acquired as the entire procedure prescribed under the LA Act was followed. The settlement took p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
