We have heard Sri D.D. Chopra for appellant and Sri S.K. Garg, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent. In relevant assessment year, assessee was engaged in real estate development and construction activities. In course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1998-99, AO made reference under s. 131(1)(d) of Act to District Valuation Officer (DVO) on 7th Feb., 2001 to estimate cost of construction of properties constructed by assessee named as Golf Link Apartments, Park Road, Lucknow and Coronation Farms at Kursi Road, Lucknow. DVO has submitted his report on 26th Feb., 2002, estimating cost of construction at Rs. 7,67,47,000 as against cost of Rs. 5,77,02,689 disclosed by assessee. difference of cost amounting to Rs. 30,55,436 was added by AO but, addition was deleted by CIT(A), on appeal being preferred by assessee. CIT(A) came to conclusion that AO was having no jurisdiction to refer matter to Valuation Officer for valuing property. appellant went in appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal again dismissed appeal after holding that issue in question was squarely covered in favour of assessee by decision of apex Court in case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (SC) 489: (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) wherein it has been held that in assessment of assessee to income-tax, AO cannot refer to Valuation Officer question of cost of construction of house property built by assessee. It was also held that s. 55A of IT Act, 1961 has no application to such matter and that power of AO under ss. 131(1) and 133(b) is distinct and does not include power to refer matter to Valuation Officer under s. 55A. view taken by Tribunal is not in accordance with law as it ignores provisions of s. 142A introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, with retrospective effect from 15th Nov., 1972. Sec. 142A of IT Act reads as under: "142A. Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases. (1) For purposes of making assessment or reassessment under this Act, where estimate of value of any investment referred to in s. 69 or s. 69B or value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in s. 69A or s. 69B is required to be made, AO may require Valuation Officer to make estimate of such value and report same to him. (2) Valuation Officer to whom reference is made under sub-s. (1) shall, for purposes of dealing with such reference, have all powers that he has under s. 38A of WT Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) On receipt of report from Valuation Officer, AO may, after giving assessee opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of assessment made on or before 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date, except in cases where reassessment is required to be made in accordance with provisions of s. 153A." bare perusal of aforesaid section reveals that AO, for purposes of making assessment or reassessment under this Act, where estimate of value of any investment referred to in s. 69 or s. 69B or value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in s. 69A or s. 69B is required to be made, may require, Valuation Officer to make estimate of such value and report same to him. Sub-cl. (3) of aforesaid section lays down proceeding on receipt of report from Valuation Officer, which requires of affording opportunity to assessee of being heard by AO while making such assessment or reassessment. proviso attached to aforesaid section excludes its applicability only in respect of assessment made on or before 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date, except in cases where reassessment is required to be made in accordance with provisions of s. 153A. This means that if assessment has not become final and conclusive o n or before 30th day of September, 2004, and does not fall in other exceptional clause, proviso being introduced w.e.f. 15th Nov., 1972 would be attracted in all matters of assessment or reassessment, which have not become final. In instant case, record reveals that AO has passed order on 27th March, 2003 and first appeal was decided on 26th March, 2004, whereas Tribunal decided appeal on 9th Aug., 2005, i.e., much after aforesaid section was inserted in Act. Tribunal though relied upon judgment of apex Court in case o f Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) but failed to consider merit and impact of provisions of s. 142A, which was inserted with retrospective effect by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. For reasons stated above, order passed by Tribunal cannot be sustained as appeal is required to be reconsidered by Tribunal keeping in mind provisions of s. 142A of Act as well as ratio laid down by apex Court in case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra). We, therefore, allow appeal and set aside order dt. 9th Aug., 2005 passed by Tribunal and remand matter to Tribunal for deciding afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to parties, expeditiously, and without any unreasonable delay. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rohtas Projects Ltd