The assessee had succeeded to a partnership. The value of the property was enhanced in the balance-sheet of the partnership to Rs.3,70,00,000/- and thereafter when the assessee took over the business of the partnership under succession it took the book value of the asset at Rs.3,81,62,525/-. The assessee sold the property for a consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2009-10 and declared a short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,81,62,525/- taking the cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,81,62,525/-. The AO  did not accept the revaluation done by the partnership and the consequent book value taken by the assessee in its balance-sheet and recomputed the short-term capital gains considering the cost of acquisition in the hand of the partnership at Rs. 2,50,000. The CIT (A) held that the cost of the property for determining the capital gains in the hands of the assessee was to be worked out in terms of S.  49(1)(iii)(e) of the  Act  as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1999.  On appeal the Tribunal held that  the amendment was not brought to clarify the existing provision but a new clause creating a tax liability by itself. This amendment in the provisions of S.  49(1)(iii)(e) though with retrospective effect could not be applied in this case. Further, the assessee had filed the return under the provisions of the Act prevailing at that time and the subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 cannot be applied on the return filed prior to the amendment. The assessee could not be asked to perform an impossible act to comply with a provision not in force at the time of filing of return but introduced later with retrospective amendment. Accordingly the amended provisions of S.  49(1)(iii)(e) could not be applied in the case of the assessee simply because at the time of filing of the return the provision was not in force hence  the addition sustained by the CIT (A)) by applying the amended provisions of S.49(1)(iii)(e)  is deleted . ( AY.2009-10)