Appeal partly allowed for reassessment under section 148. Tribunal remanded for fresh decision.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The notice issued under section 148 for reassessment was upheld as valid by the Commissioner, with the Tribunal finding the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment under section 50C. However, the Tribunal set aside the decision regarding the consideration value for capital gains under section 50C, noting discrepancies and the failure to consider a certificate from the Registration Authority. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 for reassessment.
2. Consideration value for capital gains under section 50C.

Issue 1: Validity of notice issued under section 148 for reassessment:
The appeal was against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for Assessment Year 2010-11. Ground Nos. 1 & 4 were general, while Ground Nos. 2 & 3 required adjudication. The notice under section 148 was challenged as not in accordance with the law, leading to the reassessment proceedings being deemed void. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on a difference in the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the actual consideration received by the assessee. The Commissioner upheld the notice, stating that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment under section 50C. The Authorized Representative argued that the notice was a change of opinion, while the Departmental Representative supported the notice's validity. The Tribunal found the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer justified the reassessment, dismissing the appeal.

Issue 2: Consideration value for capital gains under section 50C:
Regarding the value of the property under section 50C, the assessee sold land for a lower consideration than the market value mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer invoked section 50C based on the market value in the deed, despite the assessee's submission of a certificate from the Registration Authority indicating a lower value. The Commissioner confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's approach and the failure to consider the Registration Authority's certificate. It was deemed that the matter should have been referred to the DVO to ascertain the correct property value. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal providing detailed analyses for both issues raised in the case.

---