ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat in ITA No. 170/AHD/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the appellant has raised the following questions of law:- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO without appreciating the fact that assessee has failed to simultaneously fulfill all the four conditions laid down in Section 10(37) of the Act which are required for claiming exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act? (ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon its own decision in the case of Dipak Pauwala ignoring that the facts of both the cases are entirely different from each other. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A) after ignoring the fact that the assessee has not shown any agriculture income for A.Y.2007-08 on the sold land and has also failed to prove any agriculture activities during the A.Y. 2007-08 and thus failed to fulfill the pre-condition for claiming exemption u/s 10(37) that the sold agricultural land should have been used for agriculture purposes for a period of two years immediately before the date of transfer.” 2. The assessment of the respondent was reopened under Section 147 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on the basis of information received that the Surat Municipal Corporation (‘SMC’ for short) had purchased land at Dindoli, Surat from land owners for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and the land since was falling within the limits of SMC, it was held to be a capital asset. 2.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the sale of transfer of land was signed between the SMC and the assessee and the land was transferred by negotiations and was not acquired under compulsory acquisition of Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976. 2.2. 2.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the sale of transfer of land was signed between the SMC and the assessee and the land was transferred by negotiations and was not acquired under compulsory acquisition of Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976. 2.2. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the inquiries conducted from SMC held that the land was sold through negotiations and hence, the assessee was not eligible for benefits of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and accordingly, addition of Rs. 6,04,00,000/- was made treating the transaction as Long Term Capital Gain. 2.3. When challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it had relied on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Shri Dipak Kalidas Pauwala [ITA No. 2685/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2008-09, dated 14.08.2015] wherein, it was held that the compensation received towards the acquisition of land at village Dindoli by the SMC is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act. The reason why the CIT(Appeals) so upheld was that the land was needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or Development Plan and the acquisition of the land by the SMC was for the purpose of Sewage Treatment Plant. It was deemed to be a land needed for the public purpose within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus, was held to be compulsorily acquired by the SMC under the provision of Section 107 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (‘GTP & UD Act’ hereinafter). 2.4. When further challenged by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dipak Kalidas Pauwala [Tax Appeal No. 249 of 2016, dated 28.03.2016] where the Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal in case of Dipak Kalidas Pauwala holding that the land at Dindoli acquired by the SMC for Sewage Treatment Plant was an agricultural land which has been compulsorily acquired by SMC under the provisions of Section 107 of the GTP & UD Act. 2.5. The necessary conditions required for the transactions deemed to be for the public purpose has been upheld by this Court. 2.5. The necessary conditions required for the transactions deemed to be for the public purpose has been upheld by this Court. Again there are concurrent findings of both, the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, hence, the Court was of the opinion that there was no substantial question of law arisen for it to consider. 3. We have heard learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana Raval assisted by learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani. According to him, the Tribunal had not considered the fact that the exemption under Section 10(37) is only available to the individual or Hindu Undivided Family. It is an exemption made available towards the capital gain arisen on the transfer of agricultural land. The agricultural land should be situated within the jurisdiction of a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee or town area committee or town committee having a population of more than 10,000. The forth condition is that the agricultural land should have been used for a period of two years immediately before the date of transfer for the agricultural purpose. As all the conditions required under Section 10(37) have not been fulfilled, the authorities concerned have failed in appreciating it in the right directions. 4. Having noticed the decision of this Court in Dipak Kalidas Pauwala [Tax Appeal No. 249/2016] (supra) where this Court has considered extensively the issue of entitlement of a person for exemption under Clause 37 Section 10. In the matter before this Court, all the four conditions contemplated under the Act are said to have been fulfilled and the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence had concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). “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. 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. 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.” 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Relying on the above, the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT both have held rightly that the acquisition of the land at Village Dindoli by the SMC was for the Sewage Treatment Plant and this is a compulsorily acquired land under the provision of Section 107 of the GTP & UD Act. The land was needed for the purpose of Town Planning Scheme or the Development Plan and therefore, it was deemed to be the land needed for the public purpose within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act. 6. Possibly the entire issue had come under question because the deed of transfer of the land was signed between the SMC represented by the Director of the Town Planning and the assessee along with his family members. The proceedings under Section 77 of the BPMC Act were pending at the time of registration of sale deed for transfer of property and pending the reservation, efforts were made by the farmers and SMC to negotiate the price of land to be transferred in favour of the SMC to avoid the compulsory acquisition of the land by SMC under Sections 77 and 78. This negotiation had been vetted by the Standing Committee of the SMC vide its Resolution No. 1758 dated 28.12.2007 where the SMC had agreed to pay land owners at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq.mt for their land and to not invoke provisions of Sections 77 and 78 (Compulsory Acquisition) of Gujarat Town Planning Act. The land had been transferred by the registration of sale deed by the assessee and the SMC where the purchaser had to pay stamp duty at the prevalent market rate to avoid any kind of litigation. This was a better way worked out by the authority and the land owners. This had resulted into the Assessing Officer finding it not to be a compulsory acquisition, but, more a voluntary transfer. However, this Court in case of other assessee being Dipak Kalidas Pauwala [Tax Appeal No. 249/2016] (supra) has held the requisite conditions of Section 10(37) to have been fulfilled. 7. The issue raised in the instant case is that the agricultural land owned by the respondent assessee should have been used for a period of two years immediately before the date of transfer for the agricultural purpose and that aspect is missed out by all authorities. 8. 7. The issue raised in the instant case is that the agricultural land owned by the respondent assessee should have been used for a period of two years immediately before the date of transfer for the agricultural purpose and that aspect is missed out by all authorities. 8. We noticed that before the Assessing Officer, the department has not raised the issue and the order of the Assessing Officer was further challenged before the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter, before the Tribunal where, by a concurrent finding they have held in favour of the respondent. These are the factual aspects of the land not being used as an agricultural land two years prior to the transfer to SMC. This being a factual aspect never having been raised by the department and none of the authorities having opined anything on this, that cannot furnish the ground for disallowing anything under Section 10(37) of the Act. 9. No question of law arises much less any substantial question of law for this appeal to be entertained. Resultantly, the Tax Appeal is dismissed.