TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred by confirming the valuation adopted by the Ld. Assessing Officer as on 01. 1.04.1981 he further erred by mentioning in the Appellate Order that the value of land adopted by the registered valuer appointed by the appellant is without any basis just because he has not given any comparative sale instances. The Ld. CIT (A) has conveniently misstated the facts of the case of Nellore Straw Brothers relied upon by the appellant stating that the same are different from the case of the appellant. The Ld. CIT (A) further erred by not accepting the plea of reverse indexation method upheld by judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, the reference made u/s. 55A of the Act made by the ld. A.O. is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus liable to be quashed, as the crux of the submission made by the A.R. In support of the case, he has relied upon a judgment passed by the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Sonali Roy vs. PCIT in ITA No. 139/Kol/2007 dated 28-02-2018, a copy whereof has also been submitted before us by the ld. A.R. Such submission made by the Ld. A.R. has not been able to be controverted by the ld. D.R. 3.1 Keeping in view this particular facts and circumstances of the case before us, we have considered the judgment passed by the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Sonali Roy (supra). We find that while dealing with this particular aspect of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the orders of the lower authorities and the case laws relied upon by the assessee. In the instant case, assessee has declared the value for the cost of acquisition for the property at a higher value than the value determined by the DVO. The first technical issue arose before us is whether the reference made by the AO to the DVO for the valuation of the property is valid for the year under consideration. In this regard we note there was an amendment u/s 55A of the Act which was effective from 01.07.2012. Prior to the amendment u/s 55A of the Act, the provision of said section reads as under- Reference to Valuation Officer. 55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with its fair market value); There is no doubt that the amendment in section 55A of the Act was effective from 01.07.2012. Now, the issue arises whether amendment u/s 55A of the Act is applicable from the Assessment Year 2012-13 i.e. the year under consideration. It is well settled law that if the amendments are applicable from the first day of assessment year then it would be applicable from the relevant assessment year For example if the amendment under the statute is brought 1.4.2009 then would be applicable from the AY 2009-10 Similarly if the amendments are brought on any date other than the 1 day of April then it would be applicable to the subsequent assessment year. For example if the amendment un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eached to the conclusion no reference can be made to the DVD for the year under consideration in the given facts and circumstances. Thus on the same basis, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Keeping in view all these discussion, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to uphold the grievance of the assessee and quash the impugned revision order as devoid of jurisdiction. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 6. In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed." 3.2 From the above, it appears that the Bench on identical facts of the matter observed that the amendment brought w.e.f. 01-07-2012 would be applicable from Assessme....