- (1.) IN the aforesaid appeals similar controversy has been raised therefore, they are connected and decided by a common judgment.
(2.) THESE appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, have been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Tribunal on 6th July, 2004. In short the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed return for the assessment years, i.e., for four years namely : 1993 -94, 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1998 -99, her case was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the IT Act where the AO referred the matter to the DVO for assessing the cost of the construction. On the cost/value determined by the DVO, the AO proceeded to make the assessment. Separate appeals were filed with respect to separate assessment years, whereas the present appeals are filed for the asst. yr. 1998 -99. The appellate authority relying upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003]262ITR407(SC) of the apex Court and also relying upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Dr. Avinesh Kumar Agarwal v. Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.) (2003) 184 CTR (All) 587 held that the AO was having no power to refer the value point to the DVO. The appeal was thus allowed and the second appeal preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed, upholding the aforesaid finding.
(3.) SRI D.D. Chopra, relying upon a Division Bench judgment in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was a Member, CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 26 of 2006, decided on 23rd Feb., 2006) [reported at (2006) 204 CTR (All) 139 - Ed.] submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the meaning and import of the amended provision of Section 142A of the IT Act, which gives jurisdiction and power to refer the matter to DVO for assessing the cost/value of the construction.;