TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 hectares of paddy field in Block No. 17 of Attippra village in Thiruvananthapuram District comprised in Sy. No. 293/8. This was agricultural land. The appellant was using the same to grow paddy. 6. The Government of Kerala sought to acquire the aforesaid property of the appellant for the public purpose namely, "3rd phase of development of Techno Park....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 : "Section 10(37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 ; (ii) such land, dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 provisions of section 10(37) of Act were applicable. The appellant objected to the reopening of the said assessment by filing his reply dated November 30, 2012. However, respondent No. 2 namely, the Joint Commissioner, Income-tax Range-I, Kawadiar, Thiruvananthapuram, took the view that the case did not come under compulsory acquisition and di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ensation 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 market value of the land that was fixed as above. To reiterate his grievance, the appellant could have either taken the aforesaid adjudicatory route of seeking reference under section 18 of the LA Act leaving it to the court to determine the market value. Instead, the appellant negotiated with Techno Park and arrived at amicable settlement b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ....