Held
Original asset was sold on 22.3.2010 but the assessee had not been able to construct the residential house before 22.03.2013
Mere purchase of residential plot is not sufficient compliance of provisions of section 54F. What was expected from the assessee was to prove on record that the assessee had purchased or constructed a house within the period specified under section 54F, which the assessee had failed to prove on record. The AO rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and order of learned CIT (A) is on the correct footings, which requires no interference. Therefore, the above ground of appeal of the assessee are rejected.
The entire amount of capital gains has not been used towards purchase of plot of land and construction thereon. The unutilized amount of Rs. 11.50 lakh was not deposited in bank account before expiry of due date under section 139(1) as required under section 54F (4) of the Act. Further the amount of Rs. 87.90 Lakhs also used for purchase of plot of land and not for construction of residential house. Therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to take postpone of the tax liability for three years without satisfying any of the condition laid down u/s 54F of the Act
IN THE ITAT INDORE BENCH
Sushil Kumar Bafna
v.
Income-tax Officer, 1 (1), Ujjain
AND O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 637 (IND.) OF 2014
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11]
MARCH 27, 2017
Ashish Goyal and N.D. Patwa, Advs. for the Appellant. Mohd. Javed , Sr. DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
O.P. Meena, Accountant Memebr – This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ujjain; [in short “the CIT (A)”] dated 18.07.2014. This appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. This appeal has arisen from the order passed under section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer 1(1) Ujjain dated 25.03.2013.
The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:—
1. | That the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the action of the AO of disallowing the claim of deduction made under section 54F amounting to Rs. 99,40,150/- and in making addition of the said amount to income under the head Long Term Capital Gain. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance/addition made is wrong and bad in law and it is prayed that the said deduction may very kindly be allowed. | |
2.1 | That the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appropriate year of taxability of the Long Term Capital Gain as the construction period of three years envisaged u/s. 54F elapsed on 22.03.2013 making the Long Term Capital Gain taxable in A.Y. 20013-14 and not in A.Y. 2010-11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the year of taxability of Long Term Capital Gain being wrong, it is prayed that suitable directions be issued to the AO to tax the Long Term Capital Gain in A. Y. 2013-14. | |
2.2. | That the learned CIT(A) erred in completely ignoring the fact that the appellant has suo-moto offered the impugned capital gain u/s. 45 as income of the previous year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 in the return filed under section 139(1) as the prescribed time limit of three years expired in F.Y. 2012-13. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) of confirming the said addition in the year under appeal has in fact resulted in double taxation of the same income. | |
3. | Without prejudice to the above, and only as alternate, if at all the said addition is confirmed in A.Y. 2010-11, it is most humbly prayed that suitable directions be given to reduce the income of A.Y. 2013-14 and to adjust the resultant refund of A.Y. 2013-14 against the demand of A.Y. 2010-11. |
2. Though the assessee has taken as many as 3 grounds of appeal but in substance same relates to confirming the addition offer 99,40,150 by denying exemption under section 54F of the Act in A.Y. 2010-11 and not taxing the long term capital gain in A.Y. 2013-14 and if it be taxed in A.Y. 2010-11 then corresponding deduction be directed for A.Y. 2013-14. Hence, these are being considered together and being disposed-of by common manner.
3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee is individual and derives income from catering business. The assessee has filed return of income on 28.02.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 3,92,330/-. The assessee along with his wife and son have sold a piece of land admeasuring 3.607 hectares situated at R.G. Survey No. 1634, Ujjain on 22.03.2010 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000 in which assessee’s share of consideration was at Rs. 1,12,50,000. The assessee has claimed cost of indexation at Rs. 9,62,1010 and after deducting the same, long term capital gains was computed at Rs. 1,02,87,899/-. Out of this net long term capital gains of Rs. 3,47,749/- was offered to tax and balance of Rs. 99,40,150/- was claimed as exemption under section 54F of the Act being purchase of three plots of land for Rs. 87,90,150/- and Rs. 11,50,000/- were kept towards construction on said plots of land. The investment of Rs. 87,88,135/- was made in purchase of three plots of land being Plot No. 381 on 15.03.2010 for Rs. 28,89,910/- [PB31] Plot No. 382 on 15.023.2010 for Rs. 30,59,235/- [PB37] and Plot No. 383 on 15.03.2010 for Rs. 28,38,990/- [ PB 47]. The investment of Rs. 11,50,000/- was claimed towards construction of residential house on these three plots. The assessee was asked to furnish: – a) copy of Map/plan approved by the Municipal Corporation, Indore b) Letter of approval from Town and Country Planning, Indore, c) complete details of expenses along with bill/vouchers with regard to construction claimed at Rs. 11,50,000/- , d) date of commencement of construction and name of Architect/builder engaged to this effect. However, the assessee did not reply to said letter and has expressed his inability to furnish details called for. In view of these circumstances, the AO along with his Inspector, Shri Subhash Maheshwari , Advocate, (the ld. A.R. of the assessee), and Shri Pawan Bafana (son of the assessee), inspected the site at Indore on 19.11.2012 and found that no construction was done till the date of inspection i.e. 19.11.2012. In response to summon dtd. 19.11.2012, the assessee has attended the office of the AO, and his statement was recorded wherein he has stated that he has planned to construct a house but due to some reasons the construction could not be done. Since the conditions laid down under section 54F were not fulfilled. The AO, therefore, issued a show cause dtd. 20.12.2012 asking the assessee to show-cause as to why deduction claimed at Rs. 99,40,150/- should not be disallowed and added to income. The assessee vide letter dated 05.01.2013, replied that Town and Country Planning Department, Indore is not giving approval for construction of one big house on three plots. Unless and until, the Town and Country Planning, Indore, the Municipal Corporation approve the map, Indore did not permit construction of house. For these reasons, the construction on three plots could not be undertaken. The AO observed that three years’ time from sale of original assets was expired on 22.03.2013. Therefore, the AO again along with Shri Subhash Maheshwari advocate (counsel of the assessee), and Shri Pawan Bafna,(son of the assessee), inspected the site on 24.03.2013 and found that no construction was done within three years after the date in which transfer took place which is also evident from photograph enclosed as annexure 1 to assessment order. Therefore, the AO held that conditions as per provisions of section 54F were not fulfilled by the assessee. Neither he had purchased a residential house, within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place or constructed a house within a period of three years after the date on which the transfer took place nor deposited the amount of net sale consideration in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilized in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame and, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 54F. Mere purchase of plot does not suffice the conditions laid down in the section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of above facts, the AO disallowed the long term capital gains of Rs. 99,40,150 and added to the income of the assessee.
4. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee has sold the land on 22.03.2010 and as per the requirement of law; he has to invest in the construction of house on or before 23.03.2013. The AO along with Shri Subhash Maheshwari, Advocate (counsel for the appellant) and Shri Pawan Bafna (son of the assessee) inspected the site and found that no construction was done within a period of 3 years after the date on which the transfer took place. The appellant has also not deposited the amount of net sale consideration in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in , and utilized in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame and, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 54F of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also supported his view by placing reliance in the case of Usha Gupta v. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 287 (Raj.), wherein it was held that when no document was annexed in support of claim of deduction, mere claim of deduction under section 54F could not be allowed. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to accept whatever assessee says without proper evidence in support of that claim. Accordingly, the action of the AO was confirmed.
5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has sold the plot of land on 22.03.2010 with co-owners for Rs. 2,25,00,000 against which an amount of Rs. 1,46,00,000 was received by cheque and balance Rs. 79,00,000/- was received in cash. The assessee’s share being 50% was at Rs. 1,12,50,000/-. The assessee has received cheque amount of Rs. 41,00,000/- i.e. [ 11,00,000 on 19.8.2010+ 25,00,000 on 8.9.2010+ 5,00,000 on 17.2.2010] and Rs. 25,00,000/- on 10.4.2010 and balance amount of Rs. 46,50,000 was received in cash. The assessee utilized Rs. 33,00,000/- for purchase of plot, which were received by Smt. Pukhraj Bafana, wife of assessee who had received the same from the purchaser of land. Thus, the amount of Rs. 74 Lakhs [Rs. 41 Lakh +Rs. 33 Lakhs ] were available with the assessee, before 17.03.2010 for the payment of purchase price of three plot of lands and balance amount was invested out of fund available with him. Thus, investment of Rs. 87,90,150/- was made in purchase of new assets before the sale of original asset, with an intention to construct a residential house and an amount of Rs. 11.50 Lakh was claimed on account of construction of property. It was explained that the said amount of Rs. 33 lakhs were returned back to Smt. Pukhraj on 22.03.2010 when the amount of Rs. 46.50 Lakh was received in cash (PB8) Therefore, it was claimed that the assessee has invested 87.90 Lakh before sale of original asset. In support of the claim that investment can be made out of borrowed money in acquisition of new asset, the AR has relied in the case of Bombay Housing Corpn. v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 545 (Mum.) wherein the AO has held that sale consideration was not invested in specified assets and the assessee had diverted sale consideration of Rs. 3.55 crores to various partners and investment had been made in specified assets by borrowing an amount of Rs. 1.42 crores. The ITAT held that what the section requires is that it is necessary for the assessee only to invest an amount, which is arithmetically equal to the net consideration in the specified assets. It cannot be the intention of the section that other normal transaction or activities of an assessee should be curtailed or that the sale price should be immobilized. There may be various reasons like the buyer does not discharge the sale consideration, money is blocked somewhere else etc. Therefore, even if borrowed money is invested in new asset, exemption shall be allowed.
6. The Ld. A.R. has further relied in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani [2012] 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahd. – Trib.) where the assessee has started construction of residential house before the date of transfer of capital asset, however, same was completed within prescribed time limit of three years from the date of transfer, assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54 was to be allowed.
7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not able to construct the residential house within the prescribed time limit of three years from the date of transfer. Since the assessee wanted to join three plot of land together so that a palatable house could be made for his family. The total area of three plots of land was 467.56 Sq. Mts. Whereas as per Gazette Notification of Madhya Pradesh government dtd. 3.1.2012 it was notified that the merger of plot of land having 500 Sq. Mts. could be allowed. Therefore, the assessee has filed a merger application on 16.01.2012 (PB- 53 to 61) but the permission for merger of plot in one was denied to vide letter dated 23.01.2012. The assessee has taken the steps for merger of plot of land, which included the application made on 16.01.2012 with Town and Country Planning Department (PB61) in pursuance to Gazette Notification dtd. 03.01.2012 and finally received a letter dtd. 07.02.2014 from Town and Country Planning Department agreeing for merger (PB72). Until this time, the prescribed time limit was already expired on 23.03.2103 and therefore, the assessee has thought it proper to pay taxes while filing return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Thus, under unavoidable circumstances, the construction could not take place. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in such circumstances long-term capital gains in respect of Rs. 87.90 Lakh could not be disallowed. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. relied in the case of Smt. V. A. Tharabai v. Dy. CIT [2012] 50 SOT 537 (Chennai) where the assessee has earned long term capital gains from sale of property on 8.6.2008 on which net capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450/- . The assessee has purchased land for Rs. 38.88 Lakh till September 2006. However, due to petition filed for injunction by the owners of land, the Civil Court ordered status quo, which was prevented the assessee for further construction of the residential house. The matter went up to Apex Court, which was dismissed on 13.9.2011 and on 19.09.2011; all proceedings before the Civil Court were dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, the tribunal held that exemption u/s. 54F could not be denied where the assessee has invested sale consideration for purchasing land.
8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that CBDT Circular No. 667 dtd. 18.10.1993 , quoted by the ld. CIT (A) also laid down that the cost of construction shall also include cost of land for determining the quantum of deduction under section 54/54F provided that the acquisition of plot and also the construction thereon are completed within the period specified in these sections. However, in the case of assessee, no construction has taken place due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, as the approval of merger was received late.
9. As an alternative ground of appeal, the Ld. A.R. submitted that if the long-term capital gain is to be taxed in the A.Y. 2010- 11, then the AO therefore, be directed to reduce the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee in A.Y. 2013-14. The Ld. A.R. further relying in the case of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 505 (Ker.) submitted that the Tribunal has got power to direct the ITO to allow deduction on accrual basis for another year even which is not the subject matter of appeal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the provisions of statute should be harmoniously interpreted as in this case, the assessee has taken various steps for construction, but merger of plot of land was under dispute hence, could not be constructed. In support of this proposition, the Ld. A.R. relied in the case of Sri Prasad Nimmagadda v. Dy. CIT (IT) [2013] 56 SOT 473 (Hyd. – Trib.) held where amount of capital gains claimed as exempted under section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years, it will be charged to capital gains in year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the hardship should be avoided. The Ld. A.R. has cited a decision in the case of CIT v. Smt Bharati C Kothari [2000] 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) to contend that if the interpretation sought by the Department is accepted, this will lead to hardship to the assessee for no fault of the assessee.
10. The Ld. A.R. has placed reliance in the case of ITO v. K. C. Gopalan [1999] 107 Taxman 591 (Ker.) where the assessee has sold a residential house and acquired new residential house, and claimed deduction u/s. 54. AO held that sale price was not utilized for construction of a house, but was deposited in private banks. The Court held that the assessee has to construct or purchase a house property. Wordings of section 54 itself make it clear that the law does not insist that sale consideration should be utilized for the purchase of property. The statutory provision is clear and does not call for a different interpretation.
11. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has already purchased plot of land on 15.03.2010 before the sale of original asset on 23.03.2010, hence, it cannot be said that sale consideration has been utilized towards purchase and construction of residential house. Further, the assessee has not constructed the residential house within the prescribed time limit of 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset. The assessee has also not utilized the balance sale consideration of Rs. 11,50,000 in construction of residential house nor has deposited the same in capital gains scheme account as notified by the Central Government before the expiry of due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the AO and CIT (A) were right in disallowing the exemption under section 54F of the Act.
12. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is observed that the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F was disallowed by the AO on the ground that when he inspected the property it was found that the assessee has not constructed a residential house on plot of land purchased for on 87.50 lakh before the expiry of 3 years prescribed time limit from date of transfer of original asset. The AO also noted that the assessee has not deposited the amount of Rs. 11.50 Lakh in capital gains account as required under section 54F (4) of the Act. In order to appreciate the provision of section it would be relevant to produce the provision of section 54F which reads as under:
“54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section …….
(4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purpose or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Office Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit.;”
13. We find that section 54F contains two eventualities claiming for the benefit, one, is the purchase of the residential house and the second is construction of a residential house. The provision of section provides that it require the assessee to purchase the property being a residential house either before one year of the sale of the land or after three years from date of transfer of original asset. In the case of the assessee, we find that the assessee has purchased three plot of lands for Rs. 87.90 Lakh before one year from the date of transfer, but he has not constructed the residential house thereon within the specified period of three years from date of transfer, which expired on 23.03.2013. Therefore, the conditions laid down in section 54F (1) are not satisfied. Hence, exemption under section 54F is not available to the assessee. We further find that an amount of Rs. 11.50 Lakh was kept to be utilized for construction of residential house, but the same is neither utilized nor kept deposited in capital gains account scheme as required under the provisions of section 54F(4) of the Act. Therefore, this amount is taxable in A.Y. 2010-11 only. This view is fortified from decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. Chief CIT [2016] 387 ITR 421/242 Taxman 189/73 taxmann.com 2 held as under:
“Failure to deposit the amount of consideration not utilized towards the purchase of new flat in the specified bank account before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption. The fact that the entire amount has been paid to the developer/builder before the last date to file the ROI is irrelevant. Therefore, the claim of exemption u/s. 54F was prima-facie not in accordance with law”.
14. In view of this matter, we are of the considered view that by failing to deposit the amount of Rs. 11.50 in capital gains scheme account rendered the assessee as ineligible for the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act. Similarly, the balance amount has also not been utilized towards construction of residential house; hence, the AO was right in disallowing the exemption of Rs. 11,50,000/- under section 54F(4) of the Act. Thus, we find that the assessee is not entitled to exemption of Rs. 99,40,150/- on this amount of long-term capital gain u/s 54F of the Act.
15. The alternative ground no. 2 of the assessee is that section 54F provides a period of three years for construction of a house and in case if the assessee is not in a position to purchase a house, in the first year of the transaction, or construct the house, then the amount of capital gain can be charged to tax in the third year, in which time limit is expired. In this case A.Y. 2013-14 in which the assessee has himself shown the long term capital gains in the return of income filed by him. The Ld. CIT (A) has rightly repelled this plea. We find that section 54F reads as under :—
“54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or an HUF, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section,”
16. Thus, the requirement of Section is that the assessee is required to appropriate the amount of net consideration towards purchase of new residential house within one year before the date on which transfer of the original asset took place, then the assessee was supposed to deposit that amount in such bank or institution as the Central Government prescribed in the official gazette. The learned Counsel relied in the case of Sri Prasad Nimmagadda (supra) when it was held that where amount of capital gains claimed as exempted under section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years , it will be charged to capital gains in the year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. However, in the case of the assessee, we find that the entire amount of capital gains has not been used towards purchase of plot of land and construction thereon. The unutilized amount of Rs. 11.50 lakh was not deposited in bank account before expiry of due date under section 139(1) as required under section 54F (4) of the Act. Further the amount of Rs. 87.90 Lakhs also used for purchase of plot of land and not for construction of residential house. Therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to take postpone of the tax liability for three years without satisfying any of the condition laid down u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the claim of long-term capital gain is to be seen as whole and in piecemeal amount as part can be taxed in one year and balance can be taxed in another year. Therefore, said decision is distinguishable on facts. Further, the CBDT Circular No. 667 dtd. 18.10.1993 will come in effect only, when the assessee makes construction on the plot of land so purchased. In this case, the assessee has not been able to construct the residential house on the plot of land purchased. Hence, the assessee cannot take help of circular also.
17. The learned counsel has not been able to show that the assessee had complied with the said requirement of sub-s. (4) of s. 54F of the Act. The learned Counsel relied in the case of in the case of K. C. Gopalan (supra) in which the assessee sold residential house and acquired new residential house, and claimed deduction u/s. 54. AO held that sale price was not utilized for construction of a house, but was deposited in private banks. The Court held that the assessee has to construct or purchase a house property. Wordings of section 54 itself make it clear that the law does not insist that sale consideration should be utilized for the purchase of property. The statutory provision is clear and does not call for a different interpretation. However, this decision is not applicable to present case as this decision was given in the context for A.Y. 1984-85 wherein provision of section 54F (4) were introduced with effect from 01.04.1988, hence, said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. Apart from it, the learned CIT(A) had noted that inspite of expiry of three years from the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee has not constructed any house over the plot in question and even today the assessee had not been able to show us that construction of residential house on the plot was completed. In view of this, alternative plea of the assessee is not going to help the assessee. We also find that the original asset was sold on 22.3.2010 but the assessee had not been able to construct the residential house before 22.03.2013. The learned Counsel referred decision in the case of Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (supra) where in the case of assessee, construction of residential house started before the date of transfer of capital asset, however, same was completed within prescribed time limit of three years from the date of transfer, assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54 was to be allowed. However, this decision is not applicable, as the assessee had only purchased three plot of land on which construction was not started. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, hence, we hold that the lower authorities are justified in taxing the resultant long-term capital gain in A.Y. under appeal. Thus, the cumulative effect of the discussion above is that mere purchase of residential plot is not sufficient compliance of provisions of section 54F. What was expected from the assessee was to prove on record that the assessee had purchased or constructed a house within the period specified under section 54F, which the assessee had failed to prove on record. The AO rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and order of learned CIT (A) is on the correct footings, which requires no interference. Therefore, the above ground of appeal of the assessee are rejected.
18. With regard to alternative ground no. 3 of appeal, wherein it has been claimed that if long-term capital gain is taxed in A.Y. 2010-11, then direction may be given to the AO to reduce the amount of long-term capital gains suo-motu offered to tax in A.Y. 2013-14 by the assessee. The AR has relied in the case of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Malayalam Plantation (India) Ltd. (supra) where in it was held that Tribunal could issue direction to allow such deduction in another year to avoid double taxation. We also aware of the facts that the assessee has offered long-term capital gain in A.Y. 2013-14 and paid taxes thereon. This means that the said amount of long-term capital gain is being taxed twice, which cannot be intention of the Legislature. Therefore, we direct the AO to verify the claim whether the assessee has disclosed this long-term capital gain amount in A.Y. 2013-14, and if found correct, the AO should reduce then the said amount be reduced from taxable long-term capital gain of A.Y. 2013-14, and resultant refund of tax if any would be adjusted against the demand of assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. This ground of appeal is therefore, allowed from this limited extent.
19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.