TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 relates to the assessment year 1995-96. 2. ITA No.240 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the orders dated 16.6.2004 in ITA No.6/Chandi/2003 and 26.6.2007 in M.A.No.62/Chandi/2006, Annexures A.4 and A.5 respectively, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), for the assessment year 1994-95, claiming following substantial For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 question of law:- "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse as it has failed to appreciate that the provision of Section 142A has been retrospectively amended by the Finance Act 2004 w.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal was no more applicable in For Subsequent orders see ITA-241-2009 view of the insertion of new section 142A by Finance Act, 2004 with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972, which empowered the Assessing officer to make reference to the Valuation officer to determine the investment made in the construction of the property, a miscellaneous application was filed by the revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.6.2007 Annexure A.5, impugned herein dismissed the said application. Hence the instant appeals by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting the appeals of the revenue. According to the learned counsel, in view of Section 142A of the Act, introduced b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 1994-95 and 1995-96 came to Rs. 7,29,436/- and Rs. 2,20,176/- respectively. The 25% share of the assessee therein resulted in addition of Rs. 1,82,359/- for assessment year 1994-95 and Rs. 58,825/- for the assessment year 1995-96. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the husband of the assessee, Shri Paramjit Singh also had 25% share in the said property and in his case, the Tribunal had adjudicated the issue in his favour and accepted the valuation shown by him and the order of the Tribunal was accepted by the revenue as no further appeal was filed against it. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to adopt two different valuations in respect of identical shares in the same property for the same period....