D. Biswas, J.— The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in compliance with the direction of this Court in Civil Rule No.25 (M) of 1991, has referred the following questions of law for decision of this Court : “(1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that section 55A can be invoked by the ITO for the purpose of that chapter ie Chapter IV, whereas the addition made by the ITO in the present case was done under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 in view of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Courts' decision in the case of Daulat Ram & others vs. ITO & another (1990) 181 ITR 119 (AP) ? (2) Whether the Tribunal had any basis or material to hold that the ITO did not refer the matter to Valuation Officer under section 55A of the IT Act, when the Tribunal itself had observed at para 3 of its order that according to the ITO, the cost of the investment was low and therefore, the case was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer, Gauhati ?” 2. The respondent Smti Basana Rani Saha is the assessee. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1972-73 and 1973-74. The facts in brief are that , the assessee during the accounting year 1971-72 had constructed a building at Station Road, Karimganj Town with plinth area of 5,875 sq ft. The building in question is being used as a hotel, viz. M/s Gouri Hotel. The disclosed cost of construction of the building was Rs. 1,28,2907-. The Income Tax Officer having found the cost of construction not satisfactory, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation. The Departmental Valuation Officer assessed the value thereof at Rs. 1,92.3507-. Thus a difference of Rs. 54,160 (Rs.l,92,350-Rs.1,28,290) was segregated into two parts of Rs. 27,000 each and added to the income for the assessment year 1972-73 and 1973-74 under provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by order dated 13.10.1987 confirming the assessment by the Income Tax Officer. The decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was challenged in ITA Nos 137 and 138 (Gau) of 1988 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by order dated 13.10.1987 confirming the assessment by the Income Tax Officer. The decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was challenged in ITA Nos 137 and 138 (Gau) of 1988 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench. The Tribunal by order dated 27.2.1990 set aside the impugned reassessment made by the Income Tax Officer. Eventually as per directions of this Court in CR No. 25 (M) of 1991, the matter has come up before this Court. 4. The Tribunal have, primarily relying upon the decisions in Daulatram vs. ITO, 1988 Tax LR 1755 of Andhra Pradesh High Court and in CIT vs. Roshan Lal Seth (1989) 77 CTR (Punjab and Harayana) 222, held that the Departmental Valuation Officer cannot be asked to assess the cost of construction for the purpose of assessment proceeding. This view is founded on the conclusion that section 55A of the Income Tax Act can be invoked for ascertaining the fair market value for the purpose of Chapter IV only and not for any other purpose under the Act. 5. Shri Joshi, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the powers of Assessing Authority to call upon the Departmental Valuation Officer to assess the cost of construction for the purpose of assessment proceeding under section 69 can be traced out in the provision of sub-section (6) of section 133 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer even if made as the Wealth Tax Officer under provisions of section 16 (a) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 would make no difference inasmuch as the purpose behind such reference is to obtain opinion as to the investment made in the construction essential for reassessment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Shri BR Dey, learned counsel for the assessee, relying upon a number of decisions cited at the Bar submitted that section 55A has no application in a proceeding under section 69 as the provisions of section 55 A are specially meant for assessment of market value of capital asset for the purpose of Chapter IV only which relates to capital gains for the purpose of computation of total income. 7. 7. An identical question of law has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Reference No.6 of 1996 reported in 1999 (3) GLT 240 (CIT vs. Amiya Bala Paul) (1999 (3) GLJ 223). This Court after a thread bare consideration of the provisions of law came to the conclusion that the Assessing Authority would be quite competent to call for the report of valuation of costs of construction from the Valuation Officer in view of the provisions under sections 131, 133 (6) and 142 (2) of the Income Tax Act. Before we prefer to refer to the relevant observation made therein, we would like to quote herein below the relevant provisions of the Act for better appreciation of the controversy at hand. 8. Sections 55A, 131 (1), 133 (6) and section 142 (2) of the Act which are relevant for the purpose at hand are quoted below : “55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of capital asset for the purpose of this Chapter, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer- (a) in a case where the valuation of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Income Tax Officer is of opinion that the value so claimed is less than its fair market value; (b) in any other case, if the Income Tax Officer is of opinion- (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the market value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more thai) such percentage of the value of the asset as so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. 131. (1) The Assessing Officer...shall for the purposes of this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of following matters, namely: (a) discovery and inspection ; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions. .... 133. .... 133. The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) may for the purposes of this Act .... .... (6) require any person, including a Banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer.... ....giving information in relation to such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer ............. will be useful for value and proof in any enquiry or proceeding under this Act. 142. (2) For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Assessing Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary.” 9. It is evident from the placement of section 55A and the provisions incorporated therein that it empowers the Assessing Officer to refer to the valuation of a capital asset to a Valuation Officer to ascertain the market value thereof for the purpose of capital gain. If we strictly go by the provisions of section 55 A, no interpretation other than that it is only meant for the purposes of Chapter IV appear to be possible. But the position of law is that charging provisions of a tax statute are to be construed rigorously true to its intention while some amount of laxity is permissible in the interpretation of the machinery provisions for enforcement of the charging provisions. Here we may refer to the decisions in 37 STC 77 (Murarilal Mahabir Prasad & others vs. BR Vad & others) and 48 STC 446 (Associated Cement Co Ltd vs. CTO, Woha & others). The decisions indicate that emphasis has been on the strict interpretation of charging sections only. The machinery sections being collateral for the purpose of effecting the charging provisions have to be interpreted in tune with the object of the taxing provisions ie the charging sections. Therefore, the sections which provide for the enforcement of the charging provisions are to be construed liberally. 10. In so far as provisions of sub-section (6) of section 133:are concerned, it cannot be disputed that the assessing authority have the powers to require any person to give information in relation to such points or matters which in his opinion will be useful for value and proof in any enquiry or proceeding under the Act. 10. In so far as provisions of sub-section (6) of section 133:are concerned, it cannot be disputed that the assessing authority have the powers to require any person to give information in relation to such points or matters which in his opinion will be useful for value and proof in any enquiry or proceeding under the Act. We have no doubt that the words 'any person' used in this sub-section would also include a Valuation Officer. This Court in Income Tax Reference No.6 of 1996 decided on 25.8.99 reported in 1999 (3) GLT 240 (1999 (3) GLJ 223) also expressed this view. The decision in 82 ITR 44 (CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel) relied upon in the said case lend support to the view that the expression 'any person' in its' larger meaning would include a Valuation Officer. 11. Section 142 (2) also shows that the Assessing Officer is authorised to make such enquiry as may be necessary for the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of income or loss of any assessee. Undoubtedly the provisions in sub-section (2) of section 142 like section 55A or section 133 (6) are also enabling provisions and the law envisage interpretation thereof in aid of the object for which the law was enacted. 12. Shri Dey, learned counsel for the assessee endeavoured to bring home his contention that section 55A being specific only with regard to evaluation of fair market value of a capital asset for the purpose of determining capital gains under Chapter IV(E), has no relevance to the cost of construction of a building essential for reassessment under section 69 of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision in AIR 1988 SC 361 (Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd vs. State of Bihar) where the Supreme Court held that settled principle of construction of taxing statute should be strictly construed. That apart, the decision in 178 ITR 660 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Roshan Lal Seth) has also been relied upon to show that the fair market value determined under provision of section 16 (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 cannot be appropriately used in estimating the cost of construction of a house. That apart, the decision in 178 ITR 660 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Roshan Lal Seth) has also been relied upon to show that the fair market value determined under provision of section 16 (a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 cannot be appropriately used in estimating the cost of construction of a house. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the assessee -in the decision in 200 ITR 785 (Hotel Amar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & others) in order to show that a reference under section 55A to the Valuation Officer could be made only to ascertain the fair market value of the capital asset for the purpose of determinating capital gains. 14. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered in Income Tax Reference No. 6 of 1996 reported in 1999 (3) GLT 240 (1999 (3) GLJ 229) dealt with the question with reference to the decisions relied upon. We may reproduce the relevant excerpts from the said judgment: “18. In so far as section 133 (6) of the Act is concerned, it is submitted that it would not be applicable in the assessment proceedings since the said provision is only for the purpose of seeking information. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that neither the provisions contained in section 55 A, 133 (6) nor section 142 applies in case of inquiry before assessment. Reliance has also been placed by the assessee upon 16 ITR 825 (at page 830) Jindal Strips Ltd vs. ITO, Central Circle III, New Delhi & others, for the purpose of definition of the word 'person' used under section 133 (6) of the Act. It is a Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court. It has been held that section 55A of the Act applies to matters relating to capital gains only. It will be necessary to briefly see the facts of the case and the propositions of law as laid down. The expenses incurred in construction of mill in its premises were not properly valued in previous years. In the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Authority called for the report of Departmental Valuation Officer under section 55A. It will be necessary to briefly see the facts of the case and the propositions of law as laid down. The expenses incurred in construction of mill in its premises were not properly valued in previous years. In the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Authority called for the report of Departmental Valuation Officer under section 55A. On an objection raised against the said report, it has been held that the Assessing Authority, in the reassessment proceeding could invoke section 133 (6) of the Act for revaluation of the property.Section 133 (6) of the Act applies to any proceedings under the Act. Mere mention of a wrong section in the requisition sent to Valuation Officer viz section 55 A will not vitiate the report. It is held that valuation report could be called under section 133 (6) of the Act to evaluate the cost of construction, in reassessment proceedings. 19. We find that section 131 of the Act falls in Chapter XIII of the Act which relates to powers of the authorities regarding discovery and production of evidence etc. It reads as under: “131. (1) The assessing officer.... shall for the purpose of this Act have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of following matters, namely: (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions.” 20. From the above provision, it is clear that the income tax authorities while exercising various jurisdictions under the Act enjoy the power of a civil Court as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for certain purposes including for issue of Commission. Section 75 CPC empowers the Court trying a suit to issue Commission for certain purposes as indicated in section 75 itself, which reads as under: “75. Power of Court io issue Commission : Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may issue a Commission : (a) to examine any person; (b) (c) (b) to make a local investigation. Power of Court io issue Commission : Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may issue a Commission : (a) to examine any person; (b) (c) (b) to make a local investigation. © to examine or adjust accounts; or (d) to make a partition; (e) to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation; (f) to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending determination of the suit; d (g) to perform any ministerial Act.” Clause (e) of section 75 CPC provides that the Court can issue Commission for holding scientific, technical or expert investigation. The function of the valuer of a property is a technical function requiring expert investigation for the purpose of estimating the cost of any building. A report of a valuer, if sought for estimating the cost of a construction would only be opinion of an expert on a technical matter, e Therefore, in our view it would always be open to the assessing authority to seek expert opinion about cost of construction of a building which can broadly be termed as issuing Commission for the purpose. By virtue of section 131 of the Income Tax Act, section 75 CPC comes in aid of the income tax authorities while carrying on their functions under the provisions of the Act. It will have the same nature as that of machinery provision namely to aid and facilitate the levy, quantification of the tax liability under the charging provision of the Act. .... 22. In our view, nothing jurisdictional is involved about it and the two decisions relied upon on behalf of the assessee itself amply clarify the legal position. In the case of Hotel Amar (supra) (200 ITR 785) it has been held that a reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer under section 55A of the Act in the re-assessment proceedings, but at the same time it was held that a report obtained under section 55 A can be used as a piece of evidence which would be rebuttable. Similarly, in the . Similarly, in the . case of Jindal Strips Ltd (supra) (116 ITR 825) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court though has held that section 55A of the Act applied to the matters relating to capital gains only, but in re-assessment proceedings the assessing authority is competent to call for report of the Valuation Officer under section 133 (6) of the Act. Hence, merely wrong mention of the provisions of law namely section 55 A in the requisition calling for report of the Valuation Officer would not vitiate the report. From the above two decisions relied upon by the assessee it is clear that the assessing authority has power to call for report about the cost of construction from the Valuation Officer and while doing so, if the provision of law has been wrongly mentioned, it would be wholly immaterial e.g. while calling for the valuation report about cost of construction section 55A is mentioned, it would not make any difference so long the report is regarding cost of construction, as such power vests under other provision.” 15. In the concluding para the Division Bench held that the Assessing Authority would be competent to call for the report on valuation of cost of construction from Valuation Officer in view of the provisions of sections, 131, 133 (6) and 142 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further held that any wrong mention of provision on the requisition memo will not be material. In our considered opinion the decision rendered in the aforesaid reference case needs no change. We find no compelling reason to make a departure. Interpretation as argued on behalf of the assessee, if conceded to, would only defeat the object sought to be achieved. We would, however, like to add that the report collected from the Valuation Officer about the cost of construction is a piece of evidence and the assessing authority would continue to exercise discretion either to accept it or to reject it if it is otherwise not convincing. 16. Consequently our answer to the questions raised is in the affirmative. The Tribunal apparently erred in holding that the Assessing Authority have no powers to refer the valuation of a capital asset to the Valuation Officer for assessment of the cost of construction of the Hotel premises.