The ITO, Ward-3(3), Surat V. Shri Dipak Kalidas Pauwala, Surat

ITA 2685/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94281 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & S. S. GODARA, JM . ITA NO. 2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(3), SURAT VS SHRI DIPAK KALIDAS PAUWALA, 202,/A, 2 ND FLOOR, SARELA TOWER, NR. ST. XAVIERS SCHOOL, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA NO.AMYPP9318E APPELLANT BY SHRI KAMLESH MAKWANA, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR DATE OF HEARING: 22.7.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/8/2015 O R D E R PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09, ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT DATED 30.8.2011 PASSED IN CASE NO. CAS-II/387/2010- 11/176, REVERSING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN ADDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,46,75,120 AND TREATING ASSES SEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1.77 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOUR CES; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IN A NARROW COMPASS. THE A SSESSEE INDIVIDUAL CO-OWNED A PARCEL OF LAND MEASURING 29,7 18 SQ.MTRS. IN RS ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 NO.192, BLOCK NO.305, VILLAGE DINDOLI, SURAT SITUA TED WITHIN ITS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. THE ASSESSEE TRANSFER RED THE SAME TO THE CORPORATION ON 28.3.2008 BY WAY OF A REGISTERED DEED. THE PURPOSE STATED IN THE SALE DEED HAPPENS TO BE RESER VATION OF THE LAND FOR A SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT. THE CONSIDERATION M ONEY READS RS.5,94,36,000/-. THE SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V ENDER ALSO DEDUCTED TDS OF RS.15 , 15, 173/- UNDER SECTION 194 LA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED THE SAID TDS CERTIFICATE, CLA IMED EXEMPTION OF THE SALE DEED AMOUNT OF RS.1,42,93,050/- U/S 10( 37) INCLUDING HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN QUESTION OF RS.1.77 LAKHS. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY. HE RECEI VED AIR INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSESSEE HAVING EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN QUESTION. HE SOUGHT FOR THE NECESSARY DETAILS I.E. COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981, COPY OF 7/12 AND 8-A REVENUE DOCUME NTS PROVING THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE LAND HOLDER, INCOME/EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS OF SEE DS, FERTILIZER AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ALONG WITH WORKING OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE ABOVE STATED TRANSFER. HE ALSO PROPOSED TO TREA T THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1.77 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RESPONSE IN RETURN. HE PL EADED FOR SECTION 10(37) EXEMPTION AND INTER ALIA SUBMITTED T HE LAND TO BE SITUATED WITHIN SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JURISD ICTION LATER ON TRANSFERRED UNDER COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION PROVI SIONS, REFERRED TO NECESSARY PARTICULARS STATED IN TRANSFER DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS USE D FOR AGRICULTURAL ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 PURPOSES SINCE LONG INCLUDING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECE DING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER FORM 7/12 PRODUCED ON RECOR D FROM AY 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ONCE THE IMPUG NED GAIN HAD ARISEN FROM COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, ALL FOUR CONDIT IONS U/S 10(37) STOOD FULFILLED. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT SINCE HE WAS MAINLY AN AGRICULTURIST, NO INCOME/EXPENDITUREACCOUNT HAD BEE N MAINTAINED REGARDING DETAILS OF SEEDS, FERTILIZERS AND THE PRO DUCE SOLD. 5. WE FIND FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT AGREE TO THE ABOVE STATED PLEADINGS. HE ADMITTED TH E ASSESSEES LAND TO BE FALLING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SURAT MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. HOWEVER, HE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BEING CARRIED OUT NOR WERE THE NECESSA RY DETAILS OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS (SUPRA) HAD BEEN PRODUCED SO AS TO ACCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIM OF RS.1.77 LAKHS. HE TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAD DEDUC TED TDS ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND ALSO THAT THE SALE DEED DID NOT CATEGORISE THE LAND SOLD TO BE AGRICULTURAL. THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORD IN THE FORM 7/12 DOCUMENTS WAS HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2010 THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFIL ALL NECESSARY CONDITION S TO CLAIM SECTION 10(37) EXEMPTION AS THE LAND DID NOT FALL WITHIN 8 KILOMETRES FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS. HE ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE IMPUG NED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.1,46,75,120/- AND TREATED THE A SSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1.77 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 6 THE CIT(A) HAS REVERSED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS A CTION AS UNDER :- 4.1 THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(J7) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS 4.50 PER SQ. METER ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981., AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS 100 SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, (N VIEW THAT BOTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTER-RELATED, I TAKE THEM UP TOGETHER FOR DISCUSSION AND DISPOSAL. 4.2 THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT R ELATES TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS DISALLOWED THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT MAINLY FOR THREE REASONS: (I) SMC HAS MADE TDS ON THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNT ON THE LAND ACQUIRED FROM THE APPELLANT, WHICH PROVES THAT IT I S NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. (II) NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELL ANT TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS US ED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY DURING TWO PRECEDING YEARS, A ND (III) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED COPY OF SALE BILLS OF CROP SOLD, BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH RICULTURAL ACTIVITY TO PROVE THAT HE HAS CULTIVATED THE AGRICU LTURAL LAND. 4.3 THE SECOND AND THIRD REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BEING OVERLAPPING IS MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL. 4.4 THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT HE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF 7/12 UTARA, WHICH EVIDENCES CULTIVATION OF UOWAR' ON THE LAND IN THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS; HE HAS FILED COPY OF PANCH NAMA CONFIRMING THE FACT BY THE. PANCHAS BEFORE THE TALATIMOJEDINDOLI T HAT ON THE IMPUGNED LAND MOWAR' RIND 'TUAR 'WAS CULTIVATED BY HIM; AND HE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION FROM AS MANY AS NINE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE VILLAGE DINDOLI CONFIRMING THAT HE IS A RESIDENT OF DINDOLI FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND CULTIVATING 'JOWAR' ON HIS LAND. IT IS ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER D URING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN REGARD TO THE VOUCHE RS OF EXPENDITURE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT ON THE IMPUGNED L AND, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSION DATED 28.12.2010 FILED D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS FOR THE TDS MADE BY THE SMC ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITIO N OF LAND, THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS DRAWN WRONG CONCLUSION THAT SINCE, THE SMC HAS DEDUCTED TAX ON THE PAYMENT NO ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF MAKING COMPULSORY ACQUISITION O F THE APPELLANT'S LAND, SMC WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AGRICULTU RAL OPERATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE IMPUGNE D LAND BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND, FURTHER, COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SMC SHOWS THAT UNDER THE HEAD 'NATURE OF PAYMENT', THE SMC HAS STATED 'CONTRACTOR BILL', WHEREAS THE CORRECT NATURE OF PA YMENT IS ' COMPENSATION PAID FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND', WHICH ITS ELF SHOWS THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO ARRIVE AT A C ONCLUSION THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S OBSERVATION THA T THE IMPUGNED LAND FALLS WITHIN 8 KMS RANGE OF THE SMC HENCE, EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED U/S 10(37),IS NET ALLOWABLE, IS ALSO NOT ON CORRECT APP RECIATION OF LAW, SINCE THE IMPUGNED LAND THOUGH IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SMC, A S A MATTER OF FACT, DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE 8 KMS RANGE OF THE S MC. IT IS, THUS, STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT U/S 10 (37), FIRST CON DITION IS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION SHOULD BE SITUATED WITHIN THE JURI SDICTION OF MUNICIPALITY OR CORPORATION OR WITHIN THE 8 KMS RAN GE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPALITY/CORPORATION, HENCE, PR OVISIONS OF THE ABOVE SECTION HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF URBAN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH ARE BEING COMPULSORIL Y ACQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 4.5 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO PERUSED COPY OF V/L? UTARA' ISSUED BY THE NAYA B MAMLATDAR CITY TALUKA, SURAT WHICH WAS ALSO FILED DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I FIND THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT RECORDS C OMPLETE DETAILS OL CROP GROWN DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2003-04, 2004 -05 , 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IN ALL THE A BOVE YEARS, THE CROP GROWN HAS BEEN SHOWN AS JOWAR'. THE ABOVE DOC UMENT IS IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO. 192 AND BLOCK NO 305, OF VILL AGE DINDOLI, SURAT CITY AND ALSO RECORDS THE NAMES OF THE AGRICULTURIS TS; GEETABEN JANAKBHAI CHOKHAWALA, DIPAKBHAI KSLIDASBHAI PAUWALA , REKHNBEN CHAMPAKLNL DALAI AND MAYURIBEN ASIITBHAI BOOKSELLER FROM THE YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VER IFICATION OR INQUIRY FROM THE NAYAB MAMLATDAR, CITY TALUKA, SURAT, WHO H AS ISSUED THIS DOCUMENT. ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN FOR REJECTING TH IS DOCUMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS OF SEEDS AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL EXPE NSES AND SALE BILLS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THIS FINDING OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS, HOWEVER, NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE AP PELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST, WHICH FACT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIM SELF RECORDED IN PARA- 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND, IS FURTHER CORROBOR ATED BY THE FACT THAT ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 THE APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, AND HE HAS ALSO NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION DATE D 28.12.2010 FILED DURING COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE TH IRD REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S J.O (37) IS THE FACT THAT THE SMC HAS MADE DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT BY ACQUISITION OF LAND IN QUESTIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, HOWEVER, NOT CARRIED OUT ANY VERIFICAT ION OR INQUIRY FROM . SMC TO FIND OUT AS TO THE CORRECT NATURE OF PAYMENT ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN MADE, SINCE TDS CERTIFICATE RECORDS THE PAYMEN T ON ACCOUNT CONTRACTOR BILL', THEREFORE, HE CANNOT ACCEPT THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN PART..IN OTHER WORDS, IF TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON PAYME NT, AND IT MEANS; THAT THE LAND WAS NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME, HAS TO ALSO SEE THE CERTI FICATE FOR THE NATURE OF PAYMENT, WHICH IS RECORDED AS 'CONTRACTOR BILL''. I , THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WITHOUT MAKING PROPER VER IFICATION DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT, A ND FURTHER, HOLD THAT COPY OF 7/12 UTARA IS A PRIMARY DOCUMENT ISSUED BY A STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, WHICH CANNOT BE REJECTED, UNL ESS IT IS ESTABLISHED AS A FAKE DOCUMENT:. IN THE LIGHT OF TH E SAME, I HOLD THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND I N QUESTION BEING S. NO. 192, BLOCK NO. 305, IN VILLAGE DINDOLI IN THE NAME OF FOUR CO-OWNERS MENTIONED ABOVE, INCLUDING THE APPELLANT, IN THE FI NANCIAL YEARS 2003- 04 TO 2007-08 AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. FURTHER, AS THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AN AGR ICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SMC AND IS SITUATED IN AREA REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) OF SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE (14) OF SECTION-2 OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT FULFILLS THE FIRST CONDITION LAID DOWN U/ S 10(37) OF THE ACT. THE SECOND CONDITION THAT SUCH LAND DURING THE PERIOD O F TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY SUCH INDIVIDUALS OR HUFS OR PARENTS IS EVIDENCED BY THE COPY OF 7/12 UTARA DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE THIRD CONDITION IS THAT THE TRANSFER SHOULD BE WAY COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW . THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE SMC. THE FOURT H CONDITION THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM ACQUISITION OF SUCH TR ANSFER BEEN RECEIVED BY SUCH ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER 01,04.2004, HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN THE ORDER. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE, FULFILLS ALL THE CONDITION S MENTIONED U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. I , ACCORDINGLY, HOLD THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIV ED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF HIS LAND BY THE SMC, IS EXEMPT U/S 10(37} OF THE ACT, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS, T HEREFORE, ALLOWED. ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS. WE REITERATE THAT THE ASSESSEES LAND IS SITU ATED WITHIN THE SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS U/S 2(14) (III) (A) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE STRONGLY RELIES UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDING DENYING THE ASSESSEE EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. THIS SECTION REVEALS THAT THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS TO CLAIM EXEMPTION I .E. THE LAND HAS TO BE SITUATED IN AN AREA REFERRED TO UNDER SECTION 2( 14) (III)(A) OR (B). SUCH A LAND IS TO BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DURING THE PERIOD OF TWO IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS. THE THIRD ONE IS THAT THE TRANSFER IN QUESTION HAS TO BE BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISIT ION. THE FOURTH AND LAST CONDITION IS THAT SUCH A TRANSFER IS ON OR AFTER 1.4.2004. THE ASSESSEE DULY FULFILS THE FIRST CONDITION AS THE LA ND IS WELL WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS. COMING TO LANDS USE DURING THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE RECOR D FORM 7/12 AS RELIED UPON IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FORM ING PART OF RECORD CONTAINS ALL DETAILS OF THE CROPS SOWN SINCE FINANC IAL YEAR 2003-04. WE DEEM IT PROPER TO OBSERVE THAT THE SAME IS PUBLI C RECORD PREPARED BY AGRARIAN AUTHORITIES UNDER RESPECTIVE LAND AND T ENANCY LAWS WHICH CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC EVIDEN CE TO THE CONTRARY. THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE MUCH LESS A SPE CIFIC ONE FORTHCOMING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE SECOND STIPULATION AS WELL. NOW WE COME TO ASSESSING OFFICERS OBJECTI ON THAT THE LAND IS NOT TRANSFERRED UNDER COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. THE C ASE RECORD FILE STATES PURPOSE OF THE SALE DEED TO BE A SEWERAGE TR EATMENT PLANT. THE REVENUE DOES NOT POINT ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN. T HEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT ALSO FAILS. THE FOURTH CONDITION OF THE TR ANSFER EFFECTED ON 28.3.2010 IS AUTOMATICALLY SATISFIED SINCE THE SAME IS AFTER 1.10.2004. ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 IT IS ALSO TO BE SEEN FROM THE CASE FILE THAT ASSES SEE LED SUFFICIENT ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE CONCERNED PANCHAS I N FAVOUR OF HIS PLEA OF HAVING CULTIVATED THE LAND. THE TDS DEDUCTI ON FORM (SUPRA) IS NOT IN ORDER SINCE IT CATEGORIZED ASSESSEES PAYM ENT TO BE CONTRACTOR BILL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT PERTAI NS TO LAND TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEES THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS NAMELY SMT. MAYUR IBEN, REKHABEN AND GEETABEN HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED SEC TION 10(37) EXEMPTION IN QUESTION. THE REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT A LL THE ABOVE STATED FACTS ON RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT ITS B OTH ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS AND AGRICUL TURAL INCOME (SUPRA). THE CIT(A)S ORDER STANDS UPHELD. 8. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/8/2015 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 14/8/2015 MAHATA/- ITA NO.2685/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 24/7/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 27/7/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 14/8/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: