IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 264/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 GAURAV SAKLANI         ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Nemo. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     02.05.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The respondent-assessee, who is an individual and director and 
 shareholder of a company M/s Idiscoveri Educational Services Private 
 Limited, had sold shares of the said company and had earned profit in 
 . 
 form of capital gains of Rs.59,12,127 out of which Rs.49 lacs was received during the assessment year 2007-08.  This amount was claimed to 
 be exempt under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee 
 had purchased a residential property at Gurgaon. 
 . 
 2. It is not disputed that the assessee is an individual and income 
 from capital gains was earned.  The Assessing Officer, however, did not 
 allow benefit under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that the 
 assessee had included the newly purchased property in the schedule of 
 business assets in the balance sheet.  He has, however, recorded in the 
 assessment order that the assessee had not claimed any depreciation but 
 held that there was no ambiguity about the assessee?s intention. 
 . 
 3. In our opinion, the appellate authorities have rightly accepted the 
 stand of the assessee as the purchase of the residential property is not 
 denied.  The respondent assessee is an individual and merely showing the 
 aforesaid newly acquired residential property in the list of assets in 
 the balance sheet is not determinative.  The appellate authorities have 
 recorded that balance sheet was a personal balance sheet and the new 
 asset was shown under the head ?fixed assets?.  It is also observed that 
 in the subsequent years the assessee had not claimed depreciation and in 
 fact was residing in the property.   The appeal is dismissed.  We refrain 
 from imposing cost as the appeal has been dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V. EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 MAY 02, 2012 
 . 
 VKR 
 . 
 $ 7. 
 .