1. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. He received a sum of Rs.1,28,43,192/- in the year 2014-'15 by way of compensation for a land acquired from him for the Kochi Metro Rail Project. The petitioner, at the relevant time was under the impression that the capital gains resulting from the acquisition of the land is exigible to tax under the Act. Consequently, in the return filed by the petitioner under the Act for the assessment year 2015-'16, he has, disclosed the capital gains resulting from the acquisition of the said land and paid tax on that basis. For the said purpose, the petitioner has worked out the indexed cost of the land reckoning its fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.50,000/- per cent.

2. The first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Act for scrutiny of the return filed by him. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 notice that the deduction claimed by the petitioner under the head 'capital gains' is the issue identified for examination. The petitioner sent a reply to Ext.P3 notice reiterating that the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 was as disclosed by him and therefore, the deduction claimed by him under the head mentioned in the notice is in order. After examining the reply of the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P6 communication, the first respondent called upon the petitioner to produce documents to establish that the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 was as claimed by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, in the light of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Land Acquisition Act), this Court held in a number of cases that compensation payable to persons for the lands acquired under the said statute is exempted from payment of tax under the Act. In the circumstances, in so far as the acquisition of the land of the petitioner was under the said statute, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply to Ext.P6 notice requesting the first respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against him under Section 143 the Act. Since the first respondent has not considered the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P9 reply, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.23113 of 2017 before this Court challenging the continuance of the proceedings under Section 143 the Act. The said writ petition was admitted on 24.07.2017. This Court also passed an interim order in the said case on 24.07.2017 restraining the first respondent from continuing the proceedings.

3. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P12 order dated 14.07.2017, by which the first respondent has completed the proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P3 notice raising a demand for Rs.9,95,070/- on the basis that the cost indexation of the land made by the petitioner cannot be accepted and that the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 can be reckoned only at Rs.1,400/- per cent for the purpose of cost indexation. According to the petitioner, after Ext.P6 notice, the first respondent had issued Ext.P11 notice also to the petitioner directing him to appear before him on 20.07.2017 for the hearing proposed in furtherance to Ext.P3 notice. The case of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P11 notice, Ext.P12 order dated 14.07.2017 can only be a pre-dated one issued maliciously with a view to defeat W.P.(C).No.23113 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner before this Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that at any rate, Ext.P12 order being one issued without adverting to the contention taken by the petitioner that the proceedings are liable to be dropped in the light of Section 96 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same is unsustainable. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P12 order in this proceedings on the aforesaid grounds.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The stand taken by the first respondent in the statemen