THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RASHMI CHAUHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 26.11.2010 . Present: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. . +ITA No.1831/2010 . 1. The respondent/assessee had filed his return for the year 2003-04 in which assessee inter alia claimed benefit of exemption u/s 54 (F) of the Income Tax Act. In this behalf assessee had stated that she had purchased the shares . . of M/s Suma Finance and Investment Ltd. in the month of March, 2001 and April, 2001 which were sold in May, 2002 and November, 2004 2. Her case was that the shares were purchased for a sum of `3,24,200/-. The share were ultimately sold for a total sum of ` 52,74,760/-. She thus pleaded that long term capital gain accrued to her and this was invested by purchasing the property bearing No. 10 Underhill Road, Civil Lines Road, sale deed executed on 23.07.2002 for consideration of `45 lacs. 3. Assessing Officer continuing the to say that the no exemption can be given u/s 54 (F) of the Act on the ground that the shares were sold demat to the company in March, 2002 and that would be treated as the date of purchase of shares and cannot be the period for which the shares were held by the assessee from March, 2002 to May, 2002/November, 2002 and treat the gain from the same of those shares as short term capital gain ITA No.1831/2010 Page 1 of 3 and on this basis held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 (F) of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the Assessing Officer holding that when the shares were purchased in March, 2001 and April, 2001, the date on which they were sold and demat i.e. March, 2002 could not be taken the date as of purchase. ITAT is perfectly justified in taking the date of purchase as March, 2001 and April, 2001 and, therefore, the gain has to be treated as long term capital gain and the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54 (F) of the Act. 4. We may note here that there were some additions made by the Assessing Officer which are deleted by the ITAT and one of the additions was on account of the valuation of the property purchased by the assessee inasmuch as Assessing Officer had not accepted the value of the property as ` 45 lacs as shown in the sale deed and arrived at the valuation at ` 1.06 crores on the basis of valuation done by DVO. As far as this aspect is concerned, ITAT has rightly held that the estimated value arrived at by the DVO cannot be taken into account for making addition when A.O. had brought on record any material to suggest that any payment in excess of sale consideration has not been shown in the registered sale deed by the assessee. This issue has recently been decided by the DB-I of this Court in the case of CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal, ITA No. 182/2010 decided on 20.08.2010. ITA No.1831/2010 Page 2 of 3 5. We are of the opinion that no question of law arises in this case and hence this appeal is dismissed. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . SURESH KAIT, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010 ?mr? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No.1831/2010 Page 3 of 3 . . . #11