2019 (2) TMI 1727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act in respect of the land which was acquired? 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-  The assessee was in possession of 153.58 Ares of land in Vizhinjam village. The said properties were notified by the Government of Kerala for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, after discussion and negotiations with the Government, a sale deed was executed, whereby the properties were sold to Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited for a total consideration of Rs. 12,52,53,563. 3.1 The Assessing Officer observed that there was reason to believe that income by way of capital gains for the relevant assessment year had escaped assessment, notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act was issued to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned AR, on the other hand, submitted that land which was acquired by the Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited, was admittedly agricultural land and the assessee carried out coconut plantation and certain other crops. The solitary reason for denying the benefit of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act was that the impugned land was not compulsorily acquired, but by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited. In this context, the learned AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India (supra) and Union of India v. Infopark Kerala [81 Taxmann.com 51 (SC)]. It was contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in....