TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase of another agricultural land. Therefore, admittedly, when deduction has been granted u/s 54B A.O. also categorically admitted that the land sold was an agricultural land. A.O., however, noticed that the land was within Trivandrum Municipal Corporation, and therefore, would be an urban agricultural land falling within the provisions of section 2(14)(iii). The only reason for the A.O. to deny the benefit of section 10(37) was that the impugned land was acquired by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport and it was not a case of compulsory acquisition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India & Others [2017 (3) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] had categorically held merely bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 2012-2013, the assessee filed return of income claiming the entire sale consideration received as exempt from tax. It was claimed that the said property, which was taken over by Vizhinjam International Seaport, was an agricultural land and was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee was entitled to provisions of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, vide order dated 31.03.2015, wherein the A.O. had worked out the long term capital gains at ₹ 1,02,65,858. It was held by the A.O. that the land transferred falls within the limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India [(2017) 391 ITR 178 (SC)] and Union of India v. Infopark Kerala [81 Taxmann.com 51 (SC)]. It was contended that the Hon ble Apex Court in above cases had clearly held that since the entire procedure fixed under Land Acquisition Act was followed, the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to voluntary sale would not change though the price was fixed on negotiated settlement. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee s 70 cents of land at Vizhinjam Village was notified for compulsory acquisition by Government of Kerala for developing Vizhinjam International Seaport. Though the acquisition proceedings were taken under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved 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 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, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
