SHRI Dhanveer Singh Gambhir, Indore V. The ITO 3(2), Indore

ITA 561/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82709 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Revised return; Capital expenditure
• Section: 50C; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] BUNKSJ U;K;IHB] BUNKSJ VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] BUNKSJ U;K;IHB] BUNKSJ VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] BUNKSJ U;K;IHB] BUNKSJ VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] BUNKSJ U;K;IHB] BUNKSJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., , BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.561/IND/2014 AND S.A. NO.09/IND/2014 (IN ITA NO.561/IND/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR, 75, AMITESH NAGAR, SCHEME NO.59, INDORE / VS. ITO 3(2), INDORE ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAYPG 6545 Q ( # / APPELLANT ) .. ( $%# / RESPONDENT ) # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH MEHTA, CA $%# ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR. ' * / DATE OF HEARING 19.11.2014 ' * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 .11.2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, INDORE DATE D 22.05.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ALSO STAY PETIT ION FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INDEX COST OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AS ON 24.05.1993. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HIS PROPERTY WAS ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 2 - ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER WHO HAD AC QUIRED THE SAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 13.09.1969. IT WAS HIS SUB MISSION THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERED THE INDEXED-CO ST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 24.05.1993, BUT D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY ON 01.04.1981 U/S 49(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS HIS SUBMIS SION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSIDERING THE INDEXED-COST OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSE SSEE HIMSELF HAS CLAIMED INDEX COST AS ON 24.05.1993. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CHANGED HIS- OWN STAND WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR EXPLANATION. THEREF ORE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INDEX COST AS ON 01.04.1981 SHO ULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GIVEN ON SALE OF HOUS E PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 50C DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE TAKES BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT, THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS SH OULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR EXEMPT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GOULI MAHADEVAPPA V. ITO, [2011] 128 I TD 503 (BANG.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEEMING FICTION CREAT ED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 50C IN DETERMINING CAPITAL GAIN FROM TRAN SFER OF ANY LONG- TERM CAPITAL ASSET FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 54F HAS T O BE WORKED OUT BY APPLYING SECTION 48 WITHOUT IMPOSING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 LACS SPENT FOR RENOVATION AND RE PAIRS TO THE NEW ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 3 - RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RENOVATIO N AND REPAIRS WAS MADE TO MAKE VALUE ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUS E AND IT WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, ADDED TO THE COS T OF PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME AND THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE SAME. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE INDEXED-COST OF THE HOU SE PROPERTY AS ON 24.05.1993 AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD TAKEN THE IN DEXED-COST AS ON THAT DATE AND IT WAS THE CHANGE OF STAND TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION DETE RMINED U/S 50C SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE U/S 54 OF THE ACT, THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOULI MAHADEVAPPA V. ITO [2013 ] 33 TAXMANN.COM 47 (KARNATAKA) AND THE DECISION OF MUMB AI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJ BABBAR V. ITO [2013 ] 29 TAXMANN.COM 11 (MUMBAI-TRIBUNAL) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE H AS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THESE CASES. AS REGARD TO THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR RS.6 LACS ON THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) WERE FULL Y JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO BASIS TO CLAIM RENOVATION OR REPAIR IN A NEWLY PURCHASED HOUSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN NEITHER NATURE OF SUCH WORK WAS EXPLAINED NOR PROOF OF SUCH EXPENSE IN FORM OF BILLS OR PROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS GIVEN. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A RESIDENTIAL ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 4 - HOUSE SITUATED AT POLO GROUND, UDAIPUR ON 25.09.200 9 FOR RS.1,10,00,000/-. FURTHER, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY TH E STAMP AUTHORITIES OF THE SAID PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SAL E WAS RS.1,73,42,754/- IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THE RET URN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.65, 03,475/- IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY D EDUCTING RS.44,96,525/- FROM RS.1,10,00,000/- AND CLAIMED TH E SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS EXEMPT U/S 54 ON ACCOUNT OF IN VESTMENT OF RS.66,11,670/- IN ACQUIRING A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INDEXED-COST OF RS.44,96,525/- IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME BY SHOWING THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PROPERT Y ON 24.05.1993. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS INDEX AMOUNT SALES PROCEEDS (2009-10) SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED RS.1,10,00,000/- LESS:- COST OF PURCHASES 17,36,000 VALUATION ON DATED 01.04.1981 (17,36,000/- * 632/100 NET LESS:- INVESTMENT U/S 54 COST OF PURCHASES OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HIOUSE TRANSACTION VALUE 55,00,000/ - STAMP DUTY EXPENSES 4,67,500/- REGISTRATION FEE 44,1 70/- RENOVATION AND REPAIR 6,00,000/- 6 6,11,670/- DEDUCTION SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAIN CAPITAL GAIN 632 100 RS.1,73,42,754/ - RS.1,09,71,520/- RS. 63,71,234/- RS. 63,71,234/- NIL 6. IN THE REVISED CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT DUE TO DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.1, 73,42,754/- IN PLACE ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 5 - OF ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,10,00,000/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN CONSIDE RATION WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM BY WAY OF INHERITANCE FROM HIS FATH ER WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON 13.09.1969 AND THEREFORE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 01.04.1981 SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQUISITION A ND ACCORDINGLY INDEXED-COST SHOULD BE TAKEN WHICH HE CLAIMED AT RS .1,09,71,520/- ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUER REPORT WHICH DETE RMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.17,36,000/-. 7. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED 24 .05.1993, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED INDEXATION WITH REFERENCE TO 24.05.1993 ONLY AND ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED THE INDE XED-COST AT RS.44,95,525/-. 8. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 54 AT RS.60,11,670/- IN PLACE OF RS.66,11,670/- CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SALE DEED OF NEW HOUSE PROPERTY , THE TOTAL COST OF ASSESSEES NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAME TO RS.60,11,6 70/- AND NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF FURTHER INVES TMENT OF RS.6,00,000/- IN THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAID RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE AS SESSEE AT RS.68,35,559/-. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DETERMINING THE INDEXED-COST ON THE BASIS OF FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF 01.04.1981 ON THE GROUND THAT IN HIS OPINION NO MAT ERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BE FORE 24.05.1993. ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 6 - FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE ADDIT IONAL COST OF RS.6,00,000/- FOR ACQUISITION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HO USE BECAUSE IN HIS OPINION RENOVATION OF NEW HOUSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE I N ABSENCE OF PROPER MATERIAL. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- FROM THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE SALE DEED OF HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT POLO GROUND, UDAIPUR IT IS NOTICED THAT DR. MAHENDRA SINGH GAMBHIR FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PL OT ADMEASURING 13664.6 SQ. FT. SITUATED AT POLO GROUND , UDAIPUR FROM UDAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON 13.09.1969 AN D CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE THEREUPON. AFTER THE DEATH OF D R. MAHENDRA SINGH GAMBHIR THE PROPERTY DEVOLVED AMONGST HIS WIF E SMT. SATWANT KAUR W/O DR. MAHENDRA SINGH AND HIS TWO SON S VIZ. SHRI DHANVIR SINGH S/O DR. MAHENDRA SINGH GAMBHIR A ND SHRI PARVINDER SINGH S/O. DR. MAHENDRA SINGH GAMBHIR. AS PER ORAL AGREEMENT THE PROPERTY WAS DIVIDED IN THREE PARTS A MONGST THE THREE LEGAL HEIRS AND EVERYONE TOOK THE POSSESSION OF HIS SHARE. TO AVOID ANY DISPUTE IN FUTURE ALL THE THREE LEGAL HEIRS DECIDED TO WRITE DOWN THE CONTENTS OF ORAL AGREEMENT ON 24.05. 1993. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN COST OF ACQUISITIO N AT RS.44,96,525/- AS ON 24.05.1993. SUBSEQUENTLY DUE T O DISPUTE THE MATTER WENT TO COURT AND AS PER ORDER OF COURT ASSESSEE GOT HIS SHARE IN PROPERTY ADMEASURING 4892 SQ. FT. WHIC H HAS BEEN SOLD FOR RS.1,10,00,000/- THE MARKET VALUE OF THE S AME HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUING AUTHORITY AT RS.1,73,42,754/-. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NARRATION IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NO T ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AS THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOWING INDEXATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 49(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHEN A PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY INHERITANCE, THEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PR EVIOUS OWNER IS TAKEN ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 7 - AS THE COST OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDI NG OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS ALSO TAKEN AS THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY WAY OF INHERITANCE ON THE D EATH OF HIS FATHER WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON 13.09.1969. THEREFORE , IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE HOLDI NG THE PROPERTY SINCE 13.09.1969. AS THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE H OLDING THE SAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROM A PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.04.1 981 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AS THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO ENTITLED FOR INDEXATION FROM 01.04.1981. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPEC T OF THIS PART OF THE ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW IND EXED-COST OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 BY ALLOWING INDEXATIO N WITH REFERENCE TO 01.04.1981. 12. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF THE NEW RESI DENTIAL HOUSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AT RS.66,11,670/- BUT W AS ALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AT RS.60,11,670/-, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED AN ADDITIONAL COST OF RS.6 ,00,000/- BESIDES THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE RELEVANT REGISTERED SALE D EED. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR ADDITIO NS I.E. RENOVATION & REPAIR, MADE TO THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF RS.6 ,00,000/- WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE RENOVATION AN D REPAIRS WAS MADE TO MAKE VALUE ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ALSO IT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, CAN BE ADDED TO THE COST OF PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL COS T OF RS.6,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 8 - BEFORE THEM. WE FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE COULD EITHER BE PRODUCED BEFORE US. FURTHER, ALSO NO DETAILS AS TO HOW THE P AYMENTS WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ALLEGED RENOVATION EXPENDIT URE WAS MADE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES OR BEFORE US. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THIS PART OF THE IS SUE. 13. FURTHER, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT FROM LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN SECTION 50C IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE AR OF THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GOULI MAHADEVAPPA V. ITO, [2011] 128 ITD 503 (BANG. ), 14. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE AR IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON IS DISTINGUISHAB LE AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GOULI MAHADEVAPPA (SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF EX EMPTION U/S 54F, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SECTION 54F IS AN E XEMPTION PROVISION AND A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF AND SINCE IT IS A COM PLETE CODE IN ITSELF, COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE EXEMPTION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT WITHIN ITS FRAMEWORK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AND DEEMING FICTION CO NTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO SECTION 54F. THE DEEMING FICTION CREATED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 50C IN DETERMI NING CAPITAL GAIN FROM TRANSFER OF ANY LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET FOR PU RPOSE OF SECTION 54F HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY APPLYING SECTION 48 WITHOUT IMPOSING SECTION 50C INTO IT. THUS, IT WAS HELD THAT FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, SECTION 50C IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT T HE EXEMPTION U/S 54F OR 54 BEING A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF, EXEMPTIO N HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION ITSELF. AS PER THE PROVISIONS ITA NO.561/IND/2014 & SP NO.09/IND/2014 DHANVEER SINGH GAMBHIR AY 2010-11 - 9 - OF SECTION 54, EXEMPTION IS ALLOWABLE WITH REFERENC E TO THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT O F NET CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WHICH AROSE WIT H REFERENCE EXEMPTION U/S 54F WHEREIN EXEMPTION IS ALLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION DOES NOT ARISE IN GRANT ING EXEMPTION U/S 54. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS CONTENTION OF THE A R OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY. 15. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ITSELF, THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON WEDNESDAY, THE 19 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2014 AT INDORE. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( .. ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ( N. S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED 19/11/2014 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. # / THE APPELLANT 2. $%# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A), INDORE 5. 6 $3 , * 3 , BUNKSJ / DR, ITAT, INDORE 6. 9 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, INDORE