Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 745 - SC - Income TaxClaim for exemption u/s 10(37) - whether the land of the appellant was compulsorily acquired? - impact of negotiations regarding consideration etc. - correctness of the judgment in the case of Info Park Kerala v. Asst. CIT [2008 (10) TMI 638 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Reopening of case u/s 147 / 148 - validity of notice - Held that:- In so far 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 and 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 the 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 amount is agreed upon would not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale. It may be mentioned that this is now the procedure which is laid down even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per which the Collector can pass rehabilitation and resettlement award with the consent of the parties/land owners. None the less, the character of acquisition remains compulsory. For notification under section 4 and award under section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have entered into any negotiations for the compensation of the consideration which he was to receive for the said land. As far as the acquisition of the land in question is concerned, there was no consent. The appellant was put in such a condition that he knew that his land had been acquired and he cannot reiterate the same. The appellant, therefore, only wanted to salvage the situation by receiving as much compensation as possible commensurate with the market value thereof and in the process avoid the litigation so that the appellant is able to receive the compensation well in time. If for this purpose the appellant entered into the negotiations, such negotiations would be confined to the quantum of compensation only and cannot change or alter the nature of acquisition which would remain compulsory. We, therefore, overrule the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Info Park Kerala v. Asst. CIT [supra]. Proceedings under section 148 of the Act are quashed - Decided in favor of assessee.
|