- (1.) IN the memo of appeal the following question of law has been sought to be raised : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of difference between the cost of construction, estimated by the valuation officer and that disclosed by the assessee being unexplained investment under s. 69 of the IT Act, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (SC) 489 : (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) without taking into consideration the amended provisions of s. 142A(1) of the IT Act, introduced with retrospective effect -
(2.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the Department.
(3.) 1972 the learned standing counsel submits that the Tribunal committed an error of law in setting aside the reassessment proceedings. According to him, the AO was fully justified in taking recourse to the provisions under s. 147/148 of the Act on the basis of the report of the DVO. We have perused the three orders passed by the authorities filed along with the memo of appeal as also the proviso of s. 142A of the Act which is as under : "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th a reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of s. 153A.";