TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondent- assessee had made investment in two plots of agricultural land in Decem- ber, 1996. The investment in the farm houses were made by the assessee in the name of his father, namely, Mr. L. D. Gera for a total consideration of Rs. 41,35,700. The abovesaid properties were bought from Sam Aviation (P) Ltd. of which the assessee was one of the directors. It is an admitted fact that the sources and the investment made thereof in these two plots had been declared by the respondent-assessee under the Voluntary Dis- closure of Income Scheme, 1997 (for short "the VDIS"). On August 20, 1998, a search and seizure under section 132 of the Act, 1961 was carried out at both the respondent-assessee's residential and business premises. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee to the seller company or by the seller company to the original seller. On this basis, this addition and now, the Revenue is in further appeal before us . . . 65. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record and the Tribunal decision cited by learned authorised representative of the assessee. We find that this is the undisputed factual position that no evidence whatsoever was found in the course of the search indicating any undisclosed investment in agricultural land. The factum of purchase of land was disclosed by the assessee before the Department in VDIS, 1997 and in the absence of any adverse material found in the course of search, the addition made by the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that the reference to the Valuation Officer and consequent addition made on the basis of the said Valuation Officer's report is itself bad in law as the proviso to section 142A of the Act, 1961 itself stipulates that the said section does not apply in respect of assessments made on or before September 30, 2004. To fortify the said submission, learned counsel relied upon this court's decision in CIT v. Jupiter Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 287 (Delhi). 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9. We do not find merit in the submission made by Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal that the concealed income was detected during the course of search or any evidence was found which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucted by the Department on the basis of evidence found during the search. In the present case, since the details of the properties had already been disclosed under the VDIS, it cannot be said that the Department came in possession of any information which it did not possess earlier. 11. We are further in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Kaushik the proviso to section 142A of the Act, 1961, has no retrospective effect. The relevant extract of section 142A of the Act, 1961 reads as under : "142A. Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases. - (1) For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or th....