Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 53 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTLand acquisition - Whether land acquired is agricultural land or a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) - land of the assessee the subject matter of present assessment, was intended to be acquired by way of a notification dated 04.05.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether the compensation shall be assessed in the year of receipt or as and when the matter is finally resolved ? - Held that:- From the perusal of the affidavits filed by the assessee the part of the land owned by the assessee was acquired in the year 1989 i.e. for development of Sectors 24 to 28, Panchkula. Sector 28 is at a distance of seven and half kilometers from the District Headquarter i.e. Majri Chowk, which has been treated as a zero point by the assessee themselves in the matter pertaining to determination of compensation. The land acquired, the present subject matter, is at a distance of 1 Km from such zero point. In land acquisition cases, the assessee have projected that the land has a potential for being developed as a residential and commercial area located in close proximity of developed Panchkula city. Haryana Urban Development Authority is a local authority in terms of Section 3 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It is a corporate body, authorized to develop property, make plots, allot plots, carve out zones in planning, construct plots and delegate its authority of construction to other agencies. As decided in Union of India & others Vs. R.C.Jain & others [1981 (2) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the local authority in terms of Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act means a Municipality. Therefore, conversely, the expression ‘Municipality’ in Section 2 (14) of the Act would include a local authority. Sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Section 2 (14) deals with an area which falls within the jurisdiction of a Municipality, whereas clause (b) enable the Central Government to declare an area situated within 8 kms from the local limits of any Municipality referred to in clause (a) to notify having regard to extent and scope for urbanization of that area. The notification dated 06.01.1994 takes into its ambit an area within 5 kms of the Municipality in the expression ‘capital asset’. Therefore, the urban area developed by the Authority forms part of a Municipality. Considering the expression ‘Municipality’ as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court observed that the tests were, the administration of the provisions the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 was vested with the standing committee consisting of chairman and commissioner etc. Such members are elected by the residents of the area. The Chairman and vice-chairman of the municipality are elected by the members of the council. The Commissioner is appointed by the Government in consultation with the council. The expression ‘by any other name’ appearing in Item (a) of clause (iii) of Section 2 (14) has to be read ejusdem generis with the earlier expressions i.e. municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee. The Court has also not considered the scope and ambit of Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act defining local authority. Thus in view of the above discussion it is held that the land, subject matter of acquisition, is a capital asset falling within the scope of clause (iii) of Section 2 (14) of the Act - the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|