IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Viswanathan M., S/o. Late K.S. Mani - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Kochi and Ors - Respondent
WP(C).No.3227 OF 2020(C)
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143 (1) ;;The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 96 -The language of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, do not leave any doubt in the mind that if the land is either acquired or the result of an agreement, it could not fall within the mischief of Income Tax Act.
Statement of facts:
Petitioner is the absolute owner, title holder of a land to the extent of 7.33 cents with three shop rooms and a residential building in Sy. No.170/2 and 170/4 in Elamkulam Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, which is situated on the southern side of the Thammanam Pullepady Road. The market value of the land on announcement of Smart City Project, Metro Rail Project and Mono Rail Project, increased many fold. Out of the aforementioned land, about 1.32 Ares (3.26 cents) of land with a building of 1500 Sq. Ft. had been taken for expansion of Thammanam Pullepady Road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value as Rs.10,48,269/-and the improvements at Rs.3,864/-. The notification under the Old Land Acquisition Act was published on 24.04.2013. Thereafter, declaration under Sections 6(1) and 17(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, showing the emergency provisions which tantamount to compulsory acquisition were published.
Finding of the court:
The assessment and demand notice cannot sustain and quashed.
Result: Writ petition disposed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner, in the instant case, has assailed Exts.P7 and P8, assessment order and notice of demand issued by the Income Tax Department, respectively.
2. Succinctly, the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved are that the petitioner is the absolute owner, title holder of a land to the extent of 7.33 cents with three shop rooms and a residential building in Sy. No.170/2 and 170/4 in Elamkulam Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, which is situated on the southern side of the Thammanam Pullepady Road. The market value of the land on announcement of Smart City Project, Metro Rail Project and Mono Rail Project, increased many fold. Out of the aforementioned land, about 1.32 Ares (3.26 cents) of land with a building of 1500 Sq. Ft. had been taken for expansion of Thammanam Pullepady Road. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value as Rs.10,48,269/-and the improvements at Rs.3,864/-. The notification under the Old Land Acquisition Act was published on 24.04.2013. Thereafter, declaration under Sections 6(1) and 17(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, showing the emergency provisions which tantamount to compulsory acquisition were published.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and the award in the aforementioned case has not so far been passed. The fact of the matter is, under the agreement Ext.P1 dated 13.08.2016, entered into between the petitioner and other land owners and Corporation of Kochi, the land was acquired. In other words, the effect of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effaced. In terms of the aforementioned agreement a sum of Rs.43,08,268/-(80% of the total amount due, after deducting 1% Income Tax amount of Rs.43,518/-) was released to the petitioner and 20% is still pending, for which W.P.(C) No.208/2020 was filed, which is pending consideration.
4. The grievance in instant writ petition is confined to the impugned assessment order and demand notice whereby the Assessing Officer, after undertaking the assessment order brought the case of the petitioner under scrutiny and issued a notice under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the result thereof, the petitioner received a show cause notice. Petitioner was represented through an authorised representative and brought to the fact that the aforementioned compensation can be exempted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as it would not fall within the mischief of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of the aforementioned contention, reliance has been laid to Circular No.36/2016 dated 25.08.2016 whereby the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a clarification that if the land is nonagricultural, it would not be taxable as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment order and the demand notice are wholly without jurisdiction, malicious and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income-tax did not deny the issuance of the Circular No.36/2016 dated 25.08.2016 (Ext.P10) but supports the impugned order on the premise that the occupancy certificate placed on record reveals that the construction was not done within a period of three years, in order to claim exemption from the Capital gain and urges this Court for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and apprising the paper books, I am of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. It is a matter of record that the parties to the lis
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.