IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  03.03.2011 
.
 Present:        Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, 
 Advocate for the appellant. 
 None for the respondent. 
.
 + ITA No. 439/2011 
.
 The order of the Tribunal reveals that it has violated its earlier order 
 in respect of the same assessee pertaining to assessment year 2005-06.  Against 
 that order, the Department has preferred ITA No. 828/2010 which was dismissed by 
 this Court vide its judgment dated 13th July, 2010, inter alia, observing as 
 under:- 
 ?We have heard Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue. It is 
 urged by her that when the assessee had violated the conditions engrafted under 
 Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, it was improper on the part of the CIT(A) as 
 well as the tribunal to confer the benefit.  To appreciate the said submission, 
 we have bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the impugned orders.  On 
 a studied scrutiny of the same, it is perceptible that both the parties have 
 taken note of the fact that the shares and bonds belonged to deceased intimates 
 which normally would have gone to their legal heirs who were not traceable and 
 that is why the assessee had not entered the shares in the books and further the 
 bonds and shares were not immediately saleable.  Under these circumstances, the 
 tribunal has opined that the assessee could not be treated to be the de jure 
 owner of the shares. The tribunal has also held that the term ?held? could imply 
 ownership of the assessee to the exclusion of all others but the factual matrix 
 does not indicate the same in the case at hand.  Because of the said analysis, 
 as is manifest, the tribunal has held that the denial of exemption under Section 
 11(1)(a) on the ground that the shares were held by the assessee could go 
 against the spirit of provision.  The principle applied by the tribunal in the 
 facts of the case, we are disposed to think, cannot be found fault with and, 
 accordingly, we concur with the same.? 
.
 ITA No. 439/2011 
 page 1 of 2 
 It is clear from the above that this Court accepted the opinion of the 
 Tribunal that the assessee could not be treated to be de jure owner of the 
 shares and therefore it would not have violated the provision of Section 
 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 
 Following that order, three more appeals being ITA Nos. 1606/2010, 
 1607/2010 and 1608/2010 were dismissed on 21st October, 2010. 
 In the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal also requires to be 
 dismissed. 
 Ordered accordingly. 
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 MARCH 03, 2011 
 AK 
.
.
.
.
 ITA No. 439/2011 
 page 2 of 2 
.
.
.
.
.
 2 #