The Assessing Officer rejected the exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act and assessed the sale consideration un)der section 68 of the Act and raised the demand of Rs  175, 52, 26, 440. The application for stay was rejected by the CIT(A). On writ, the Court held that rejection of the application for a stay without considering the additional evidence was held to be not justified.  Directed the appellate authority to decide the application under rule 46A which is pending before it as also the appeal within three months from to day. Instruction No. 1914, dated February 2, 1993  Referred  Valvoline Cummins Ltd v.Dy CIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Delhi)(HC), Soul v Dy.CIT(2008) 173 taxman 468 (Delhi)(HC). (AY.2017-18)