ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has challenged the order dated 22.7.2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 2685/Ahd/2011 by proposing the following two questions, stated to be substantial questions of law:-- "(A) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is not perverse in not appreciating the fact that the Surat Municipal Corporation has deducted TDS on the compensation paid to the assessee, as per the requirement of section 194LA of the Act on the non-agricultural land acquired by it?" (B) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of learned CIT (A) treating the land in question as agricultural land without any evidence substantiating the generation of agricultural income and expenditure incurred thereof ?" 2. The respondent-assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 27.1.2009 declaring taxable income at 'nil' and showing agricultural income of Rs. 1,77,000/-. The return came to be processed under section 143(1) of the Act and came to be accepted on the returned income. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for scrutiny through CASS. The Assessing Officer noted that on a perusal of the TDS certificate enclosed with the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration, the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation, (SMC) Mugalsarai, Surat had deducted tax at source of Rs. 15,15,173/- from the payment of Rs. 1,33,73,100/- made to the assessee on account of land acquisition. The assessee claimed refund of the entire amount of TDS and also claimed exemption of the income to the tune of Rs. 1,42,93,050/- including agricultural income of Rs. 1,77,000/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to submit a copy of the sale deed in respect of the land so acquired by the SMC, which came to be furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the land in question, namely, Revenue Survey No. 192, Block No. 305 of village Dindoli, Surat admeasuring 29718 square metres had been acquired by the SMC for sewage treatment plant. The Assessing Officer noted that the land in question, namely, Revenue Survey No. 192, Block No. 305 of village Dindoli, Surat admeasuring 29718 square metres had been acquired by the SMC for sewage treatment plant. According to the Assessing Officer, since tax had been deducted at source by the SMC, the same itself proved that the land in question was not an agricultural land. He further noted that the sale deed of the land acquired by the SMC under compulsory acquisition, did not contain the word "agriculture" or "agricultural" in the entire deed, and was, accordingly, of the view that the SMC had rightly deducted tax at source from the payments made to the assessee. Placing reliance upon the provisions of section 194LA of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the SMC had rightly deducted tax at source from the compensation paid to the assessee because of the fact that the land in question was not an agricultural land. He, accordingly, held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions as provided in sub-clause (ii) of clause (37) of section 10 of the Act and computed the long term capital gain at Rs. 1,46,75,120/- and also treated the agricultural income of Rs. 1,77,000/- as income from other sources and added it to the total income of the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, upon consideration of the material on record, found that the assessee had produced a copy of the extract of 7/12 record maintained by the Deputy Mamlatdar, City Taluka Surat which was also filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Upon perusal of the said document, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the same contained complete details of the crop cultivated during the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and in all the said years, the crop grown was shown as 'Jowar'. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the Assessing Officer had dismissed the claim of the assessee under section 10(37) of the Act without making proper verification and held that the copy of the 7/12 extract was a primary document issued by a Government authority, which could not be rejected unless it was established to be a fake document. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the Assessing Officer had dismissed the claim of the assessee under section 10(37) of the Act without making proper verification and held that the copy of the 7/12 extract was a primary document issued by a Government authority, which could not be rejected unless it was established to be a fake document. He, accordingly, held that agricultural activities were being carried on over the land in question being Survey No. 192 Block No. 305 in village Dindoli in the financial years 2003-04 to 2007-08 as well as 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Commissioner (Appeals) further found as a matter of fact that the land in question was an agricultural land within the municipal limits of Surat Municipal Corporation and is situated in an area referred to in item (a) of sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the Act and, therefore, the assessee fulfilled the first condition laid down under section 10(37) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that the second condition, namely, that such land during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of the transfer should be used for agricultural purpose is established by the extract of 7/12 record. The third condition that transfer should be by way of compulsory acquisition under any law was an undisputed position as the land had been acquired by the SMC. The fourth condition was that the income arising from acquisition of such transfer should have been received by the assessee on or after 1.4.2004, which was also an undisputed fact. He, accordingly, found that the assessee fulfilled all the four conditions mentioned under section 10(37) of the Act and that, therefore, the compensation received by the assessee towards acquisition of his land by the SMC was exempt under section 10(37) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, allowed the said ground of appeal. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. 3. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal. 3. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal. It was submitted that the sale deed executed by the Surat Municipal Corporation for compulsory acquisition of land did not mention the land in question as an agricultural land and that in the absence of any substantive evidence to establish that the land was an agricultural land, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was carrying on agricultural activity on the said land and that the requirements of section 10(37) of the Act were satisfied. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal requires to be admitted on the questions as proposed or as may be formulated by the court. 4. In the present case, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of compensation received by it from the Surat Municipal Corporation for acquisition of its lands under clause (37) of section 10 of the Act. Section 10(37) of the Act which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:-- "10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-- xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where-- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; (iii) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India; (iv) such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression "compensation or consideration" includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or any authority;" 5. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression "compensation or consideration" includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or any authority;" 5. Thus, for the purpose of being entitled to exemption under clause (37) of section 10 of the Act, the assessee is required to satisfy the four conditions enumerated thereunder. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has found as a matter of fact that the assessee was carrying on agricultural activity on the land in question being Survey No. 192, Block No. 305 in village Dindoli. The Tribunal has also concurred with the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of SMC in terms of item (a) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the Act. Insofar as the land in question having been acquired by way of compulsory acquisition is concerned, that is an undisputed position. The fourth condition, namely, that the income arising out of the acquisition in relation to such transfer should have been received on or after 1.4.2004 is also an undisputed position. Thus, the Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the assessee fulfills all the requisites for the purpose of being entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Act and has based its conclusion thereon. It is not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored, nor is the learned counsel for the appellant in a position to dislodge the concurrent findings recorded by the Tribunal by pointing out any material to the contrary. Except for the contention that in the sale deed, the subject land is not shown to an agricultural land, no other contention has been raised. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 6. Except for the contention that in the sale deed, the subject land is not shown to an agricultural land, no other contention has been raised. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 6. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal being based upon concurred findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the material on record, in the absence of any perversity being shown in such findings of fact, does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.