2017 (3) TMI 745 - SC - Income Tax

Claim for exemption u/s 10(37) - whether the land of the appellant was compulsorily acquired? - impact of negotiations regarding consideration etc. - correctness of the judgment in the case of Info Park Kerala v. Asst. CIT 2008 (10) TMI 638 - KERALA HIGH COURT - Reopening of case u/s 147 / 148 - validity of notice - Held that - In so far as acquisition of the land is concerned the same was compulsorily acquired as the entire procedure prescribed under the LA Act was followed. - The settlement took place only qua the amount of the compensation which was to be received 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 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 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. 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 land had been acquired and he cannot reiterate the same. The appellant therefore only wanted to salvage the situation by receiving as much compensation as possible commensurate with the market value thereof and in the process avoid the litigation so that the appellant is able to receive the compensation well in time. If for this purpose the appellant entered into the negotiations such negotiations would be confined to the quantum of compensation only and cannot change or alter the nature of acquisition which would remain compulsory. We therefore overrule the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Info Park Kerala v. Asst. CIT supra . Proceedings under section 148 of the Act are quashed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the High Court.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the denial of exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the High Court. The appellant owned agricultural land which was acquired by the Government for a public purpose. The appellant received compensation for the land, and the Income-tax Department initially refunded the tax deducted at source, considering it exempt under section 10(37). However, the Department later sought to reopen the assessment, claiming that the acquisition was not compulsory but a voluntary sale. This led to a legal battle where the High Court upheld the Department's view, denying the exemption. The Supreme Court analyzed the acquisition process and concluded that the land was compulsorily acquired, as all procedures under the Land Acquisition Act were followed. The Court emphasized that the appellant's negotiation for compensation did not change the nature of acquisition from compulsory to voluntary. The Court disagreed with the High Court's judgment in a similar case and overruled it, allowing the appellant's appeal and quashing the proceedings under section 148 of the Act.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between compulsory acquisition and voluntary sale concerning tax exemptions under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It highlights the importance of following legal procedures in land acquisition and emphasizes that negotiations for compensation do not alter the nature of acquisition. The Court's decision provides clarity on the applicability of tax exemptions in cases of compulsory acquisition, ensuring consistency and fairness in tax assessments related to land transactions.