Appeal dismissed for non-speaking assessment order; fresh assessment directed for fair hearing and verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal found the initial assessment order to be non-speaking and lacking consideration of crucial facts, leading to underassessment of income. It upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the order for reassessment, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment with proper verification of all relevant documents and ensuring a fair hearing for the assessee independent of the Commissioner's observations.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2006-07.

Grounds of appeal:
1. Commissioner setting aside assessment order u/s 143(3) for reframe.
2. Alleged error in assessment order prejudicial to revenue.
3. Alleged ownership rights on 50% built-up area.
4. Sale proceeds claimed as long-term capital gain.
5. Assessee's role as confirming party in sale agreements.
6. Alleged lack of transaction verification.
7. Alleged failure to verify capital gains claim.
8. Alleged lack of support for submissions in assessment computation.

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) accepting the declared total income, including long-term capital gain on sale of flats. The Commissioner u/s 263 found underassessment of income due to unverified details, setting aside the order for reassessment. The Commissioner noted the discrepancy in total sale proceeds not disclosed by the assessee and directed reevaluation of profit from business. The assessee admitted inability to provide all documents during initial assessment, agreeing to reassessment without influence from the Commissioner's observations.

The Tribunal held the initial assessment order as non-speaking, lacking consideration of key facts regarding capital gain classification and expense verification. Acknowledging the order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set it aside for reassessment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh assessment, considering all relevant documents and providing a fair hearing to the assessee, independent of the Commissioner's observations.

The appeal was dismissed with the above observations, affirming the Commissioner's order.

---