TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 2004-2005 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the IT Act. 2. Common grievance of all the assessee pertains to validity of reference made by the AO to the DVO in the A.Y.2004-05, in respect of Fair Market Value as on 01/04/1981, alleged by the AO as higher than value adopted by assessee. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In case of ITA No.4233-4237/Mum/2015, the facts are that these co-owners under 3 development agreements have transferred their respective rights in 3 parcels of land at village Gandhare, Taluka Kalyan to Mls. Madhav Construction & 2 others for the total consideration mentioned in the respective agreements. Each of the co-owner had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that as the year under consideration is 2004-05 much prior to the amendment so brought in Section 55A(a) by 2012 Act w.e.f. 1st July, 2012, we do not find any merit in the reference so made by the AO to the DVO when the fair market value offered by the assessee was more than the value determined by DVO. 6. We had carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal. Precise observation was as under:- 3. The common grievance of the assesses in all the appeals pertains to addition made by the AO by disregarding the valuation made by the assessee on the basis of government approved valuer's report as on 1-4-1981. 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that all the above assesses are co-owners of land si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal Shah -Vs- ITA & Anr. 310 ITR 31 (Guj) (2009) 6. The Finance Bill 2012, Bill No. 11 of2012. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and contended that the CIT(A) has relied on the sale instances of village Chikanghar, Kalyan, the land of the assessee was located at village Gandhare, Kalyan and the location and other factors were comparable. 8. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tassessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A (a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less than the fair market value" is substituted by the words" "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarificatory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Yea....