Tribunal upholds notice & assessment, remands fair market value determination. Deduction claim dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under sections 147/148 and the assessment under section 144. However, it set aside the determination of fair market value for capital gains tax calculation to the AO for reconsideration. The claim for deduction under section 54B was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence regarding the fair market value of the property as on 1/4/1981.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specific notice.
3. Opportunity of hearing before completing the assessment.
4. Adoption of estimated fair market value for capital gains tax calculation.
5. Denial of deduction under section 54B for investment in agricultural land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Sections 147/148:
The assessee contested that the notice under section 148 was never served. The CIT(A) verified the assessment record and found that the notice was issued through speed post and there was no evidence of it being returned unserved. The Tribunal upheld this, citing the presumption of valid service in the absence of contrary evidence. The assessee's claim that the notice was not served was rejected.

2. Assessment Under Section 144 Without Specific Notice:
The assessee argued that the assessment was carried out in the wrong hands without a specific notice. The CIT(A) found that the property was sold in the individual capacity of the assessee, not as part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal agreed, noting that all documents and the enquiry report indicated the sale was made by the assessee in an individual capacity. The argument that the assessment should have been made in the name of the HUF was rejected.

3. Opportunity of Hearing Before Completing the Assessment:
The assessee claimed that the assessment was completed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal noted that multiple notices were issued, and the assessee did not respond. Therefore, the assessment under section 144 was justified due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed this ground.

4. Adoption of Estimated Fair Market Value for Capital Gains Tax Calculation:
The assessee challenged the fair market value adopted by the AO, arguing it was based on arbitrary valuation without evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO estimated the fair market value based on market enquiries but did not provide evidence of such enquiries. The Tribunal set aside this issue to the AO to determine the fair market value of the property as on 1/4/1981, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. The AO was directed to consider the fair market value or refer the matter to the district valuation officer if necessary.

5. Denial of Deduction Under Section 54B:
The assessee's claim for deduction under section 54B for investment in agricultural land was not argued before the Tribunal. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed due to lack of arguments.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under sections 147/148 and the assessment under section 144. However, it set aside the issue of fair market value determination for capital gains tax calculation to the AO for reconsideration, while dismissing the claim for deduction under section 54B. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present evidence regarding the fair market value of the property as on 1/4/1981.

---