TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DVO, then such invocation of provisions of section 55A(a) of the Act was held to be not justified. Reference was also made to the amendment to section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012, wherein for the words is less than the fair market value was substituted by the words is at variance with its fair market value , was held to be clarificatory and it was categorically held that where the amendment was made effective only from 01.07.2012; the Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. The Hon ble High Court thus, held that the law to be applied in the facts of the present case was the section as existing during the period relevant to assessment year 2006-07. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the year under ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik is justified in holding that amendment to section 55A is not retrospective and allowing assessee's claim when the issue of the amendment being applicable with retrospective effect was not in question. 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik failed to appreciate that s.55A being a machinery provision delineating the procedure for determination of fair market value of an asset the amendment by Finance Act, 2012 would apply to all pending matters on the date the amendment came into force. 4)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik failed to appreciate that in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 19,40,699/- was worked out. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the value submitted by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 was not acceptable. The Assessing Officer made reference to the Valuation Officer to determine the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The Assessing Officer did not receive the report of the Asst. Valuation Officer before completion of assessment proceedings and made enquiries from the Joint District Registrar, Stamp Value Duty, Nashik for determining the value of land as on 01.04.1981. In reply, the said Authority referred to another sale instance, but the assessee pointed out that there was no justification and basis for adopting the same. The assessee had declared the valuation of land at ₹ 68,71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer and pointed out that the valuation submitted by the assessee vis- -vis cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was higher. 8.The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (supra) relied on the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard. 9.We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the determination of cost of acquisition of plot of land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee during the year under consideration had sold piece of land and the issue which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted by the assessee of any property was more than the fair market value as determined by the DVO, then such invocation of provisions of section 55A(a) of the Act was held to be not justified. Reference was also made to the amendment to section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012, wherein for the words is less than the fair market value was substituted by the words is at variance with its fair market value , was held to be clarificatory and it was categorically held that where the amendment was made effective only from 01.07.2012; the Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. The Hon ble High Court thus, held that the law to be applied in the facts of the present case was the section as existing during the period relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
