1 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ----- - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of : 14, 2010 Date of decision July - Commissioner of Income tax Bathinda --- Appellant Versus Devki Devi widow of late Kasturi Lal --- Respondent --- : . CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL . HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- : PRESENT . , Ms Savita Saxena Advocate . for the appellant . None for the respondent --- , . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J 1. The Revenue has approached this Court under 260- - , 1961 ( “ Section A of the Income tax Act in short the 2 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of ) Act’ and has prayed that the following substantial questions , of law arise in this appeal for the consideration of this Court - , from the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar , ( “ ) Bench Amritsar in short the Tribunal” passed on 30.9.2002, - . 555 ( ) 2001, in Income tax Appeal No ASR for 1992-93: the assessment year 1- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances , of the case the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the reopening of assessment / 147 u s of the act based on valuation report , was not valid whereas as per valuation report . 16,91,200/- income to the tune of Rs has . escaped assessment ” 2- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the report of the Departmental “ Valuation Officer is Information or not” for / 147 initiating proceedings u s even after 3 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of 147 amendment in section with effect from 1.4.1989.” 2. The assessee had filed return of income for 1992-93, . the assessment year declaring an income of Rs 18,650/-. 143(1) The return was processed under Section ( ) a of the Act and subsequently proceedings under Sections 147/148 . of the Act were initiated The assessing officer . 16,91,200/- observed that an income of Rs chargeable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had incurred . 1,51,000/- / Rs as cost of construction renovation of . 3056, , residential house No Power House Road Bathinda . 18,42,200/- against cost of construction of Rs as ( ). determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer DVO The , Assessing Officer ultimately vide assessment order dated 18.2.2000 . framed assessment on an income of Rs 14,09,928/-. The assessee filed appeal before the - ( ) [( “ ( )] . Commissioner of Income tax Appeal for short CIT A ” The appeal was remanded back to the assessing officer for . - decision afresh The assessing officer re framed the 4 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of , 27.6.2001 assessment vide order dated and made an . 5,06,600/-. addition of Rs This gave rise to the assessee ( ). to once again prefer appeal before the CIT A In the , ( ) appeal the CIT A held that the assessing officer was 147 justified in invoking the provisions of Sections read with 148 . Section of the Act The consequential assessment 143(3) , , framed under Section was thus held to be legal and . valid 3. . The assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal - The assessee only pressed the question of re opening of the 147 . assessment under Section of the Act The Tribunal after , examining the matter accepted the plea of the assessee and , 30.9.2002. accordingly allowed the appeal vide order dated 4. The issue that arises in this appeal is whether the assessing officer could have reopened an assessment on the . , basis of report of the DVO Learned counsel for the Revenue , however could not refer to any provision except Section 55 , A of the Act on the basis of which it could be pleaded that the report of the DVO was valid for estimating the 5 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of correct cost of the construction and investment in the house . in question He also made efforts to draw support from the 142 provisions of Section A of the Act introduced by Finance ( .2) 2004 . . . 15.11.1972. Act No of w e f 5. We do not find any substance in either of the . submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revenue 6. The apex Court in . . Smt Amiya Bala Paul v - , Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 262 407 ( ) ITR SC had held that in an assessment of the assessee to income , tax the reference by the assessing officer to the DVO regarding question of cost of construction of a property built . , by the assessee cannot be made Once that is so the reliance on the report of the DVO by the assessing officer for . reopening the assessment was not justified 7. 142 Even after insertion of Section A of the Act by ( . 2) , 2004, . . . 15.11.1972, Finance No Act w e f this Court while considering the scope of its applicability to proceedings under , - . 48 1994, the Act in Income tax Reference No of 6 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of ( ), . Commissioner of Income Tax Central Ludhiana v Nabha ( ) . Solvex P Ltd 7.7.2010, : decided on has held as under “11. The question regarding the applicability of 142 Section A of the Act was subject matter of ' consideration before this Court in Krishan Lal Dua s ( ) case supra wherein the assessment had become 31.3.1995 final on and the same was not liable to 153 , reassessment under Section A of the Act it 142 was held that Section A of the Act would not . be applicable as the proviso was attracted The . ' Allahabad High Court in Smt Shashi Agarwal s ( ) case supra had held that where the Tribunal had passed the order before the cutoff date prescribed 142 under the proviso to Section A of the Act and 260 the appeal under Section A of the Act being maintainable before the High Court only on , , substantial question of law therefore it could not be said to be continuation of the assessment proceedings within the meaning of proviso to 7 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of 142 . , Section A of the Act The Assessing Officer , thus had no power to refer the matter to the . DVO Similar view has been taken by Delhi and . Calcutta High Courts 8. , In view of the above we hold that Section 142 A of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present , , . case and thus no reliance can be placed upon that , Consequently the initiation of reassessment proceedings on . the basis of report of the DVO cannot legally be sustained 9. , Accordingly the substantial questions of law claimed by the Revenue for determination by this Court are . . answered against the Revenue The appeal is dismissed ( ) AJAY KUMAR MITTAL JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR ) GOEL 14, 2010 July JUDGE * * rkmalik 8 - . 71 2003 Income tax Appeal No of