TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt : K. Radhakrishnan, Kiran Bhardwaj For the Respondent : H. R. Rao, Niranjana Singh, Arijit Prasad, R. M. Bajaj, Anil Katiyar JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the matter finally at this stage with the consent of the parties as it was fixed for final disposal. 3. The question of law that is raised in this appeal and squarely arises for consideration is the following : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in denying the claim for exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the appellant ? 4. This question has arisen under the following circumstances : 5. The appellant was the owner of 27.70 acres of land in Sy. No. 18.60 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the parties, the appellant agreed to execute a sale deed of the property in question in favour of Techno Park. Such sale deed was executed on May 8, 2008 and duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kazhakkootam. While disbursing the aforesaid amount of sale consideration, the Techno Park deducted 10 per cent. of the amount of tax deducted at source and it was later refunded to the appellant herein by the Income-tax Department taking a view that no capital gains was payable on the aforesaid amount received by the appellant as the same was exempted under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). We would like to re-produce the provisions of section 10(37) of the Act, which read as under : Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, capital gains tax was payable. The appellant filed Income-tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 and the income was also assessed accordingly. However, thereafter on May 30, 2012, a notice was issued to the appellant under section 148 of the Act whereby the Income-tax Department decided to reopen the assessment on the ground that income which was assessable to Income-tax escaped assessment during the year 2009-10. The stand which was taken by the Revenue in this notice was that the amount of compensation/consideration received by the appellant against the aforesaid land was not the result of compulsory acquisition and on the contrary it was the voluntary sale made by the appellant to the Techno Park and, therefore, the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the compensation as fixed under the award and take possession of the land in question from the appellant. No doubt, in case, the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was not acceptable to the appellant, the LA Act provides for making a reference under section 18 of the Act to the District Judge for determining the compensation and to decide as to whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper or not. However, the matter thereafter is only for quantum of compensation which has nothing to do with the acquisition. It is clear from the above that insofar as acquisition is concerned, the appellant had succumbed to the action taken by the Government in this behalf. His only objection was to the mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure 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. 10. This court has doubts about the correctness of the judgment in the case of Info Park Kerala v. Asst. CIT [2008] 4 KLT 782. The court in the said case took the view that since the title in the property was passed by the land owners on the strength of sale deeds executed by them, it was not a compulsory acquisition. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid view. It is clear that but for notification under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
