TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Land Acquisition Act, the final price was fixed upon negotiated sale agreement. As regards denying of benefit u/s 10(37) for that reason that the impugned land was not compulsorily acquired but by executing a sale deed, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India Others [ 2017 (3) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURT] . Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price was fixed through a negotiated settlement, the character of acquisition would still remain compulsory. In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) s order dated 12.10.2018. The relevant assessment year is 2013- 2014. 2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal is whether land that was acquired, was entitled to the benefit of section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act? 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee along with his wife, was in possession of 47.54 Ares of land at Survey No.606/4 in Vizhinjam village. The same was sold by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport for a total consideration of ₹ 3,22,99,490, out of this the share of the assessee is ₹ 1,61,49,745. For the assessment year 2013-2014, the assessee filed return of income claiming the entire sale considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the CIT(A) that the assessee would not be liable for long term capital gains on the acquisition of the impugned land. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied on the assessment order. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that land which was acquired by the Vizhinjam International Seaport, was admittedly agricultural land and the CIT(A) had accepted the impugned land to be agricultural land after perusing certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer showing the nature of land at the time of acquisition. It was further submitted that the assessee had declared agricultural income from the said land for assessment years 2011-2012 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for that reason that the impugned land was not compulsorily acquired but by executing a sale deed, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India Others (supra) . Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price was fixed through a negotiated settlement, the character of acquisition would still remain compulsory. The relevant finding of the Hon ble Apex Court reads as follows:- 8. In our view, insofar as acquisition of the land is concerned, the same was compulsorily acquired as the entire procedure prescribed under the LA Act was followed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer was based on the Inspector s report dated 28.01.2016. It is a fact that the land acquired was consisting of yielding coconut trees and banana. The total consideration received by the assessee also includes the cost of standing trees and loss of agricultural income. The sale deed clearly shows the existence of standing coconut trees in the said land. The said property was sold to Vizhinjam Port Trust on 31.07.2012. The Assessing Officer s finding that the said land is not an agricultural land is based on inspection report after 45 months from the date of transfer i.e. on 28.01.2016. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10(37) based on the certificate produced by the assessee and the details of agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
