2017 (10) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uestions 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 Rs. 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 furnishing information in respect of growing of Crop on the agricultural land during the year 2007-08? (ii) Whether the Ld. AO was justified under law to denying exemption u/s. 10(37) of the IT Act on the compensation received by the Assessee in respect of its land acquired by RIICO and making Addition of Rs. 1,30,33,036/- as Capital Gain by considering a Khasra Girdavari which does not disclose the inform....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration 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:- Khasra No. F.Y. 2005- 06 Samvat 2062-63 F.Y. 2006- 07 Samvat 2063-64 F.Y. 2007- 08 Samvat 2064-65 F.Y. 2008- 09 Samvat 2065-66 196 0.27 Hectare Wheat Patat (...) Patat Banjad(...) 199/453 0.11 Hectare Banjad Banjad Banjad Banjad 206 0.02 Hectare Patat Patat Patat Patat 458/195 0.23 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ricultural operation for claiming the benefit of Section 10(37) of the Act. The assessee produced Kastagar namely Shri Hemraj Sharma alongwith his affidavit which has been examined by the Assessing Officer but has not has able to demonstrate that he really cultivated the land. There was no evidence with him or with assessee that there was an irrigation facility available on that land and incurred expenditure for cultivating the agricultural activities on it. The assessee also has not able to produce any authentic evidence of sale proceeds from the mandi before the lower authorities. The ld CIT(A) also wrongly appreciated the fact that in Samvat 2064-65 (F.Y. 2007-08), the assessee cultivated khasra No. 198, 461/195 and 460/195. On verificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in B. M. Muniraju V/s Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Bangalore [2016] 282 CTR 108 (Karnataka) wherein it has been held as under:- 7. Even otherwise, we notice from the records that subsequently certain certificates came to be issued by the revenue authorities in the year 2012 to indicate that there was agricultural crop of Jowar on the plot in the year 2005-06 as well as 2006-07 and in the year 2007-08. The revenue records produced by the assessee before the authorities also indicated that there was plantation of Eucalyptus saplings. Thus, even on facts, records are inconsistent or contrary to each other that there was plantation of Eucalyptus saplings. What is to be considered i....