TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 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 Rs. 1,31,558/-. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat [in short "the CCIT"] that the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) purchased land in Dindoli, Surat from the land owner for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant. The assessee was one of the persons who sold her land out of RS No.171/Block No. 270-B for Rs. 6.04 Crores on 19.03.2008 to Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC). As per AO, the land falls within the limit of Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) and it was a capital asset within definition under section 2(ea) of the Income Tax Act. On t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Rs. 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 appellant with his family members and the land was transferred by negotiations- and was not under compulsory acquisition of Gujarat Town Planning Act 1976.The AO on the basis of the inquiries conducted from SMC held that the land was sold through negotiation and was not through compulsory acquisition and hence the appellant was not eligible for the benefits of section 10(37) of the Act and therefore added this amount of Rs. 6,04,00,000/- for LTCG. The appellant submitted that the agriculture land measuring 30200 sq. mtrs. situated at Village Dindoli along with other agricultur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Dipak Kalidas Pauwala (supra). On the basis of aforesaid submission, the ld. AR of the assessee would submit that the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are thus is squarely covered up against the revenue. 7. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(DR) after going through the decision of Tribunal decision of Tribunal order dated 13.12.2019 in ITA No.1566/Ahd/2016, wherein the coordinate bench allowed similar relief to the 23 assessees, whose land were also acquired by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) for Sewage Treatment Plant. However, the ld. AR submits that strongl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 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 been compulsory acquired by SMC under the provision of section 107 of GTP & UD Act, 1976 as the land needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or Development Plan shall be deemed to be meaning for public purpose within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (I of 1894) and eligible for exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. This decision of Tribunal was also confirmed by the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 249 of 2016 dated 28.03.2016. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atory 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 Rs. 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 place only qua the amount of the compensation which was to be received by the appellant for the land which had been acquired. It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by the Government under Sections 4 & 6 followed by award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed to divest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He was compelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and to avoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the final compensation. Merely because the compensation....