COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHASHI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the aforesaid appeals similar controversy has been raised therefore, they are connected and decided by a common judgment.

(2.) THESE appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, have been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Tribunal on 6th July, 2004.

(3.) SRI D.D. Chopra, relying upon a Division Bench judgment in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was a Member, CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 26 of 2006, decided on 23rd Feb., 2006) [reported at (2006) 204 CTR (All) 139 - Ed.] submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the meaning and import of the amended provision of Section 142A of the IT Act, which gives jurisdiction and power to refer the matter to DVO for assessing the cost/value of the construction.