1. In the present income-tax appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax has raised the following questions said to be substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 15, 2003. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1992-93:
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the Department's appeal by following the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003] 262 ITR 407 despite the fact that the facts and circumstances of that case were different to those of the assessee's case?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the report of the Valuation Officer cannot be utilized as an evidence or expert opinion of a technical expert by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment in view of the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003] 262 ITR 407?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the issue of unexplained investment in the property was covered in favour of the assessee by the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003] 262 ITR 407?
2. The original assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was completed on November 19,1992. The reassessment proceeding under Section 148 of the Act was initiated and on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Officer investment in the property was added. Relying upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT : [2003] 262 ITR 407 the Tribunal has set aside the reassessment order on the ground that the report of the District Valuation Officer cannot be made the basis for initiating reassessment proceeding.
3. Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Counsel for the Department and Sri Ashish Bansal learned Counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned standing Counsel submits that in view of the provisions of Section 142A of the Act which was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, with effect from November 14, 1972, the assessment proceedings could not have been set aside. The submission is misconceived. The assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act had become final between the parties. In view of the proviso to Section 142A of the Act, reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the purposes of assessment cannot be taken, if the assessment has become final between the parties before Section 142A was inserted, i.e., September 30, 2004. That being the position we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal.
5. We mention here that similar view has been taken by this court in I.T.A. No. 476 of 2005, CIT v. Leather Trends P. Ltd. : [2010] 320 ITR 114 decided on April 30, 2009.
6. In view of the above, we are, therefore, of the considered view that the present case does not raise any substantial question of law.
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed on the merits.