Tribunal denies tax exemption for non-agricultural land use, confirms ownership transfer.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under section 10(37) of the IT Act, ruling that the land was not used for agricultural purposes as required. It also confirmed the transfer of land to JDA in 2008, dismissing the claim of ownership and usage by the assessee until the allotment date. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence presented did not prove agricultural operations on the land. The assessee's plea for reconsideration based on additional evidence was rejected, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's application on 28/04/2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under section 10(37) of the IT Act.
2. Ownership and usage of land till the date of allotment letter.
3. Consideration of Khasra Girdawari and agricultural operations.
4. Evaluation of additional evidence such as affidavits, electricity bills, and photographs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Exemption under Section 10(37) of the IT Act:
The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) denying his claim of exemption under section 10(37) on the grounds that the land was not used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order but the assessee contended that the Tribunal made mistakes in its findings. The Tribunal noted that the essential condition for exemption under section 10(37) is that the entire land must be used for agricultural purposes, not just a part of it. The Tribunal clarified that the interpretation of section 10(37) was germane to the issue and could not be rectified under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The Tribunal corrected the mistake regarding the size of the land owned by the assessee but maintained that the presence of 50 Amla trees on 1.01 hectares of land did not change the conclusion that the land was not used for agricultural purposes.

2. Ownership and Usage of Land Till the Date of Allotment Letter:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal ignored the fact that he was using the land until the allotment letter dated 20.11.2009, despite the land being transferred to JDA in 2008. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the assessee's claim of owning and using the land until the allotment date. The Tribunal upheld its finding that the land was transferred to JDA in 2008 based on Khasra Girdawari records, and the compensation received in 2009 was the basis for charging capital gains in AY 2010-11.

3. Consideration of Khasra Girdawari and Agricultural Operations:
The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not consider the Khasra Girdawari for 2008, which showed the cultivation of 50 Amla trees, proving agricultural operations. The Tribunal noted that the Khasra Girdawari for 2008 showed JDA as the owner, and there was no mention of Amla trees in the 2007 records. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the decision in ITO Vs. Smt. G.S. Lekha, where the land was certified as agricultural by an Agricultural officer, and compensation for trees was determined. The Tribunal found no mistake in its findings and rejected the assessee's contention.

4. Evaluation of Additional Evidence:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal did not consider other evidence such as electricity bills, affidavits, and photographs proving agricultural operations. The Tribunal stated that it had considered all relevant facts, including Khasra Girdawari and affidavits, and concluded that no agricultural activities were carried out on the land, which was lying vacant for four years. The Tribunal held that accepting the assessee's contention would require reappreciation of the material on record, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld. The Tribunal found no mistakes apparent on record that warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The order was pronounced on 28/04/2020.

---