Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.11 As far as case laws relied upon by the A.O. are concerned, on perusal it is seen that none of the case laws relied upon by the A.O. are applicable to the facts of this case. The case laws referred by AO are as under:-

a. CIT v omprakash Bagaria (HUF) 2871TR 523 (MP) In this case the AD issued a commission under s. 131(1)(d) to District Valuation Officer on 23rd Aug·, 1996, to determine the cost of construction Virasha Infrastructure ITA No.179 & 180/Ind/2018 of the building for the purpose of making on estimate of the investment referred to in s, 69, additions were mode on this basis and the assessee had filed on appeal before the higher authorities challenging that reference to valuation officer is permissible only u/s 55A of the act to determine the market value of capitol asset and no reference can be mode u/s 131(1)(d), the appeal was pending before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the High court the Finance Act 2004 mode amendment in section 142A providing the AO with power to make a reference to the DVO for estimating the value of investment and the amendment was made effective with retrospective effect from 15.11.72. The proviso to the section provided that the amended section will not apply to assessment which has become final and conclusive on or before 30.09.2004. In these circumstances the court held that os the appeal is pending before it, the assessment has not become final and conclusive and hence the amended section 142A of the act will be applicable as it has been amended w.e,f 15.11.72 and accordingly the reference made to the DVO was a valid reference. Thus the issue for decision before the court in that case was whether amended provisions of section 142A made in 2004 con be made applicable to cases in which assessments ore already completed. Thu' it would be seen that the ,aid judgment ha' no applicable to the case of the assessee.