2011 (1) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l for the parties that all the appeals involve common question of law of applicability of section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act).   2. ITA No.57 of 2005 has been filed under section 260A of the Act against order dated 19.5.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") passed in ITA No.555/Chandi/2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000.   3. The assessee constructed a house building and declared investment made in the construction. The Assessing Officer did not accept the same and sought the opinion of the District Valuation Officer under section 131(1)(d) of the Act. According to him, there was undervaluation and real value was much higher. The A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) especially when the reference with regard to the construction of house building was made to the Valuation Officer under section 131(1) (d) and not under section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also newly added provisions of Section 142A in the Income Tax Act, 1961?   ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.28,557/- made on account of difference in cost of construction shown and that determined by the AO? &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aveen Gera, (2010) 328 ITR 516 (Del)   iv) CIT v. Krishan Lal Dua, (2005) 277 ITR 477 (P&H)   v) CIT (Central) Ludhiana v. Nabha Solvex (P) Limited, ITR No.48 of 1994, decided on 7.7.2010 (P&H).   vi) Income Tax Officer and others v. Kajaria Investment and Properties P.Limited, (2008) 297 ITR 45 (Cal).   7. Thus, the question for consideration is whether proviso would apply when before September 30, 2004, appeal under section 260A was pending in the High Court.   8. We are of the view that pendency of appeal in this Court under section 260A would exclude the applicability of the proviso. The proviso can apply only if assessment has become final and conclusive before September 30, 2004. If appeal is pe....