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