Land belonging to assessee as well as adjoining lands were acquired for purpose of development of Seaport (VISL)-Thereafter, assessee by a registered sale deed conveyed property to VISL. AO  held that on date of transfer, land owned by assessee became part of Municipal Corporation and, thus, it could not be regarded as agricultural land because of S.2(14)(iii)(a), and on that basis, he denied benefit of exemption under S.10(37) of the Act.  There was difference of opinion amongst the members and the matter is referred to third member. Third member held that provision of S. 10(37) are meant specifically for purpose of removing hardship to a land holder, whose lands are situated in an area specified in section 2(14)(iii)(a)(b), if such lands are compulsorily acquired for public purpose subject to condition that, two years prior to their acquisition, land was used for agricultural purposes. On facts the  Agricultural Officer had certified said land to be agricultural land, AO was not right in coming to conclusion that land falling within purview of capital asset under S. 2(14)(iii)(a) would not be entitled to exemption under S. 10(37) of the Act. ( AY. 2012 -13)