JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by M. S. Sanklecha J.-The challenge in this petition under article 226 of Constitution of India is to notice dated December 21, 2006, and February 2, 2007, issued by District Valuation Officer ("the DVO") under section 55A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). substance of petitioner's challenge is to jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT(A")) under Act to make reference to District Valuation Officer ("the DVO") in appeal before it for determining fair market value ("the FMV") of land as on April 1, 1981. It is this reference by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which led to issue of two impugned notices. This petition was admitted on April 24, 2007, and proceedings calling for report from District Valuation Officer was stayed. Shorn of details, facts are as under: (a) For assessment year 2002-03, petitioner filed its return of income returning loss of Rs. 107.63 crores. During previous year relevant to assessment year 2002-03, petitioner had sold its property at Andheri (land) for consideration of Rs. 131.15 crores. For purposes of computing its long-term capital gains on sale of land, petitioner adopted fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 46.70 crores. This was on basis of valuation report submitted by registered valuer. resultant difference between sale price and fair market value on April 1, 1981, of land was subject to capital gain tax. (b) Assessing Officer by his order dated March 24, 2005, passed order under section 143(3) of Act. Assessing Officer did not accept fair market value of land at Rs. 46.70 crores as claimed by petitioner but estimated fair market value as on April 1, 1981, of land at Rs. 17.48 crores. On basis of difference between selling price and fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, as estimated by Assessing Officer was subjected to tax. assessment order dated March 24, 2005, determined petitioner's income at Rs. 47.43 lakhs. (c) Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In its appeal, petitioner, inter alia, challenged fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, done by Assessing Officer. Pending disposal of appeal by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), petitioner received notice dated April 19, 2005, from District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act seeking particulars to determine fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981. This notice was on basis of reference made on April 7, 2005, by Assessing Officer to District Valuation Officer. (d) petitioner challenged notice dated April 19, 2005, issued by District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act at instance of Assessing Officer by filing Writ Petition No. 392 of 2006 in this court (since reported in Rallis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 159 (Bom)). By order dated April 3, 2006, this court in above petition quashed notice dated April 19, 2005, issued by District Valuation Officer at instance of Assessing Officer. This on ground that once Assessing Officer has passed assessment order, he becomes functus officio. Thus, after passing assessment order, it is not open to Assessing Officer to make any reference to District Valuation Officer to determine fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, under section 55A of Act. (e) Thereafter, notices dated December 26, 2006, and February 2, 2007, issued under section 55A of Act were received by petitioner from District Valuation Officer. By above notices, petitioner was called upon to furnish certain details with regard to land for determining its fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981. above notices state that information is being sought to determine fair market value in view of reference made to it by Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals); and (f) aforesaid notices dated December 26, 2006, and February 2, 2007, are subject matter of challenge in present petition. Mr. Pardiwalla, senior counsel with Mr. Jain, in support of petition, submits as under: (a) reference to District Valuation Officer by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 55A of Act for determining fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, is without jurisdiction. As in terms of section 55A of Act, jurisdiction to make such reference is only with Assessing Officer and not with any other authority. (b) reference made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act would be contrary to and in defiance of order of this court dated April 3, 2006, in Writ Petition No. 392 of 2006 reported as Rallis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 159 (Bom). (c) Supreme Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) has held that no reference can be made for determining fair market value of immovable properties in absence of specific provision under Act. District Valuation Officer gets jurisdiction to act upon reference only if same is made under section 55A of Act and not otherwise. (d) Parliament has not empowered Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while entertaining appeal under section 250 of Act to make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. This is evident from specific provision found in section 23A(7) of Wealth-tax Act, which is in pari materia to powers of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 250(4) of Act; and (e) Without prejudice to aforesaid, it is submitted that jurisdiction under section 55A of Act can only arise if at relevant time, Assessing Officer or Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is of opinion that value of land estimated by registered valuer is less than its fair market value. In this case, it is not disputed that value of land declared by registered valuer is not less than its fair market value. As against above, Mr. Pinto, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, opposes petition and submits as under: (a) No reference has been made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. In support, reliance is placed upon affidavit-in-reply dated April 11, 2007, and in particular to letter dated December 21, 2006, of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer. (b) This reference by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer is in exercise of his powers under section 250(4) of Act to make such further enquiry as he deems fit. (c) mere reference in notice to section 55A of Act by District Valuation Officer in his notices dated December 26, 2006, and February 2, 2007, would not by itself make it enquiry under aforesaid provisions. (d) reliance upon powers of appellate authority under Wealth-tax Act is inappropriate as this petition is concerned with powers of appellate authority under Act. Thus, reference to Wealth-tax Act is uncalled for; and (e) issue whether or not, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) satisfied condition precedent to make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act is issue which could be determined by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in case petitioners take objection before him in that regard. In any case, this enquiry by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) not being under section 55A of Act, there is no occasion to refer to same when Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) exercises his power under section 250(4) of Act as appellate authority. On query as made by us that impugned notices are titled as "Notice under section 55A", Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for Revenue, submits that impugned notice has not been issued under section 55A of Act though so titled. He submits in fact, no reference under section 55A of Act was made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer and, therefore, no notice invoking section 55A of Act could be issued by District Valuation Officer. It was submitted that reference to section 55A of Act in impugned notices by District Valuation Officer is mistake and must be ignored. On background of aforesaid submissions, question which would arise is whether Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is entitled to make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 250(4) of Act to determine fair market value of property. It must be noted that respondents have not denied/ disputed that reference made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer is to determine fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, for purposes of determining capital gains chargeable to tax. This is evident from communication dated December 21, 2006, addressed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to District Valuation Officer which reads as under: "To, District Valuation Officer, Piramal Chambers, Lal Bagh, Parel, Mumbai 400 007. Sub: Appeal No. CIT(A)XXI/1(3)/IT.53/0506 in case of Rallis India Ltd. Assessment year 2002-03. Please refer to above. This is with reference to letter No. DCIT. Cir. 10/0405/Kol/14, dated April 7, 2005, of Deputy CIT, Circle 10, Kolkata, regarding valuation of plot located at Suren Road, Plot bearing CTS Nos. 221 to 227, 229 to 233, 236, 237, 244 and 245 of Village Gundavali at Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 (copy enclosed for your convenience). Appeal has been filed in above case on ground that Assessing Officer erred in not accepting valuation report giving fair market value as on April 1, 1981, at Rs. 46.70 crores of Andheri property furnished by registered valuer and that valuer had valued said property without substantiating basis and Assessing Officer further erred in valuing said property as on April 1, 1981, on ad hoc basis at Rs. 17.48 crores. For this purpose, Assessing Officer has referred matter to you for valuation of said plot. However, same has been quashed by hon'ble High Court. 2 In view of order of hon'ble High Court, you are requested to forward report on this matter at earliest so as to enable this office to dispose appeal as it is high demand appeal." (Sd.)..... above letter makes reference to valuation of land as on April 1, 1981. It also refers to reference by Assessing Officer to District Valuation Officer and seeking report which had been quashed by High Court to enable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to dispose of appeal. It is contended by petitioner that under Act as existing at relevant time, reference to District Valuation Officer can be made only under section 55A of Act for purposes of determining fair market value as on April 1, 1981. This power to make reference to District Valuation Officer has been bestowed only upon Assessing Officer. It is submitted that if Assessing Officer fails to make such reference, no other authority can make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. Mr. Pinto, learned counsel appearing for Revenue accepted submission on behalf of petitioner and specifically states that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does not have any jurisdiction to make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. However, Mr. Pinto states that where Assessing Officer has failed to make reference when obliged to do so under section 55A of Act then Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in appeal being heard by him, can make reference under section 250(4) of Act to District Valuation Officer to make such further enquiry so as to determine fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981. Therefore, we shall first deal with Revenue's submission that impugned communication are consequent to reference made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in exercise of his powers under section 250(4) of Act as appellate authority. Section 250(4) of Act reads as under: "The Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report result of same to Commissioner (Appeals)." Mr. Pinto, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, submits that this power is very wide. There are no fetters to it. Thus, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) can make any enquiry which he deems fit. However, according to us, this power to make further enquiry under section 250(4) of Act can only be in respect of issues which arise under Act and for which specific provision have been made and Assessing Officer has failed to do what he ought to have done. Thus, this power of enquiry though very wide has to find its source in one of substantive provisions of Act. It is in context of substantive provisions that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to examine whether Assessing Officer either did no enquiry at all or made insufficient enquiry. This power cannot be exercised de hors substantive provisions of Act. We find that only provisions then existing to make reference to District Valuation Officer for purposes of determining fair market value to compute capital gains was found in section 55A of Act. We shall now deal with contention of petitioner that there is no power available to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 55A of Act to make any reference to District Valuation Officer. It is submitted that power under section 55A of Act can only be exercised by Assessing Officer. In support of his submissions, petitioner has drawn attention to sections 131, 133, 134, 189(2), 271(1)(c), 271G, 271A and 271AA of Act where specific reference has been made to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) along with reference to Assessing Officer. This is being relied upon to suggest that if powers under section 55A of Act could be exercised by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it would have been so mentioned eo nomine therein. All above sections being referred to above by petitioner are in different context. Some of them are in respect of imposing penalty in appellate proceedings to take care of situations where no penalty has been imposed by original authority. None of above sections are in respect of jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as appellate authority from order passed by Assessing Officer. If appellate authority from order passed by Assessing Officer. If petitioner's submission is to be accepted, then in appeal from assessment order under section 143(3) of Act by Assessing Officer, it would not be open to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to allow any claim which has been rejected by Assessing Officer as section 143(3) of Act does not refer to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In terms of section 143(3) of Act, it is only Assessing Officer who can allow or reject claim and arrive at taxable income. Thus, we do not find any substance in submissions of petitioner that in view of fact that section 55A of Act does not mention Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), section cannot be invoked by him. It also must be borne in mind that making reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act for determination of capital gains is part of process in passing assessment order under section 143(3) of Act. It is undisputed that power of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is coterminous with that of Assessing Officer. In fact, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) can do what Assessing Officer can do and has failed to do as held by apex court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC). Thus, in this case, even, according to petitioner, Assessing Officer could make reference to District Valuation Officer but he failed to do so during assessment proceedings. This court in W. P. No. 392 of 2006 by order dated April 3, 2006 reported in Rallis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 159 (Bom), set aside reference to District Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer as it was made after he had passed assessment order and ceased to have jurisdiction. However, it is undisputed that during assessment proceedings before him, Assessing Officer could have made reference to District Valuation Officer and yet he choose not do or failed to do. This failure or conscious decision of not referring to District Valuation Officer could be subject matter of examination by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in appeal before him. In this case, issue of fair market value as on April 1, 1981, was admittedly raised by petitioner in its appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) during appellate proceedings before him can exercise powers under section 55A of Act and can make such enquiry in terms of section 250(4) of Act either himself or direct Assessing Officer to do so and report in terms of section 250(4) of Act. order of this court dated April 3, 2006, in W. P. No. 392 of 2006 reported in Rallis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 159 (Bom) has no application in present facts. Thus, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) can make further enquiries into fair market value as on April 1, 1981, in view of Assessing Officer failing to make such enquiry under section 55A of Act while passing assessment order. only other provision to make reference to Valuation Officer is section 142A of Act introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, with retrospective effect from November 15, 1972. Section 142A of Act deals with determination of fair market value of investments referred to in section 69 or section 69B of Act or to value of bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles referred to section 69A or section 69B of Act or in respect of fair market value of any property referred to in section 56(2) of Act. In this case, reference which had to be made by Assessing Officer to District Valuation Officer is under Chapter IV Part (E) of Act while reference which is to be made under section 142A of Act is in respect of Chapter IV Part (F) and Chapter VI of Act. Therefore, section 142A of Act would have no application to present facts. It is settled position that provisions of section 55A of Act which were amended in 2012 by substituting following words "as it variance with its fair market value" for "is less than its fair market value" is clarificatory and not retrospective as held by this court in CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bom). Therefore, Revenue did not contend that provisions of section 55A of Act is retrospective. It, therefore, follows that where admittedly value arrived at by registered valuer of land is more than its fair market value, no jurisdiction is acquired by authorities to invoke section 55A of Act. Although reference has been made to provisions of Wealth-tax Act, we are, as pointed out above, of view that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does have power to make reference to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. Moreover, appeal under section 23A(7) of Wealth-tax Act to first appellate authority would also lie from order of District Valuation Officer's having effect of varying value of property independently of any assessment order. Thus, according to us, provisions made in Wealth-tax Act will not in any manner influence interpretation of section 250(4) of Act. However, before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) makes reference to District Valuation Officer in terms of section 55A of Act he should be of opinion that value determined by registered valuer as fair market value of property as on April 1, 1981, is less than its fair market value. Only on having formed above opinion, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is entitled to call upon District Valuation Officer to submit report with regard to its fair market value as on April 1, 1981. However, as rightly contended by Revenue, this is issue which petitioner could urge before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and satisfy him that reference is not called for to District Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act. As this is issue to be decided by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on his satisfaction, we would not pre-empt his jurisdiction to decide on facts as found by him. We find, as observed above, powers under section 250(4) of Act of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though very wide yet it would be circumscribed by substantive provisions of Act. enquiry made by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 250(4) of Act cannot be outside scope of Act. Revenue in spite of our repeated efforts insists on fact that power is being exercised only under section 250(4) of Act alone. No other provisions of Act to determine capital gains under which enquiry could be directed Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in present facts is applicable, according to Revenue. In view of above, we cannot sustain reference under section 250(4) of Act. It may be pointed out that Supreme Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) dealt with somewhat similar issue and Revenue therein relied upon section 142(2) of Act to contend that by virtue of above provisions, Assessing Officer could order enquiry by District Valuation Officer de hors section 55A of Act. For convenience, we reproduce section 142(2) of Act as under: "For purpose of obtaining full information in respect of income or loss of any person, Assessing Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary." Supreme Court held that above provisions reiterates that Assessing Officer is fact finding authority. It is opinion of Assessing Officer consequent to enquiry by him and not by District Valuation Officer. court observed that "A report by Valuation Officer under section 55A of Act is on other hand outcome of any inquiry held by Valuation Officer himself and reflects his opinion on evidence before him. Such report would not be result of inquiry by Assessing Officer." Thus, section 142(2) of Act cannot be source of power of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to direct District Valuation Officer to make enquiry. We have discussed above issues, as we were of view that notwithstanding stand of Revenue and petitioner that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot invoke section 55A of Act for making further enquiries in appeal, we do not agree with same. Moreover, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before invoking provisions of section 55A of Act has to form opinion that value determined as value of land as on April 1, 1981, by registered valuer was less than its fair market value on that date. This exercise has not been done by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as, according to Revenue, he has not exercised powers under section 55A of Act. We, therefore, find that impugned notices dated December 26, 2006, and February 2, 2007, of District Valuation Officer not having been issued under section 55A of Act, according to Revenue, are quashed and set aside. However, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is at liberty to exercise powers under section 250(4) read with section 55A of Act if he is of opinion that conditions for its invocation are satisfied after hearing petitioner's on above aspect. Accordingly, petition is allowed in above terms. Before closing, we record with pain our dismay in manner in which Revenue has assisted us in this petition. petition was first heard on January 7, 2015, and January 8, 2015, and, thereafter, reserved for orders. At that time, all proceeded on basis that counsel for Revenue is appearing for all respondents. However, to seek clarification, we put matter on board on January 22, 2015, under caption'for directions'. At that time, we asked counsel for Revenue exact stand of District Valuation Officer who has issued impugned notice dated December 21, 2006, and February 2, 2007, in respect of section 55A of Act invoked by him. At that time, counsel for Revenue informed us that he is briefed only to appear for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and that he does not appear for District Valuation Officer, i.e., respondent No. 2 and, therefore, is unable to respond to our query. In above circumstances, we closed matter "for orders". Thereafter, it was brought to our notice that counsel for Revenue has filed his vakalatnama only on February 2, 2015, wherein name of respondent was indicated as Commissioner of Income-tax-3 who incidentally is not one of parties to petition. In above circumstances, we again kept matter "for directions" on February 6, 2015. On pointing out aforesaid facts, counsel for Revenue submitted that he would file fresh vakalatnama in respect of all respondents and that he does appear for all respondents. This, after we pointed out that at time of admission, counsel for respondents had waived service for all respondents including District Valuation Officer. We do understand that neither respondents or its counsel had anything gain on above account. It appears to have happened due to lack of adequate care. Thereafter, we kept matter on board again "for hearing" on February 12, 2015, to enable counsel for Revenue to file his vakalatnama as well as to respond to our query with regard to District Valuation Officer. On February 12, 2015, when matter was called out, none appeared for Revenue. Unmindful of fact that petition was listed only to accommodate Revenue, it was after about 5 to 7 minutes of calling out petition shown as part heard, that counsel for Revenue walked into court and mentioned that he was busy in another court. Thereafter, we heard Revenue. We find that respondent-Revenue brief only few selected counsel in all matters. This consequently results in counsel briefed for Revenue not being completely prepared as it is humanly impossible for counsel to adequately prepare oneself in more than couple of matters on average per day. This results in lack of proper assistance to court. It would be proper that respondent-Revenue brief counsel on their panel across board so as to ensure that counsel have time to properly prepare themselves to render proper assistance to court. We hope that respondent will give due consideration to our suggestion and appropriately distribute cases amongst its panel counsel. As mentioned at paragraph 21 above, petition allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. *** Rallis India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax