Appeal allowed, value remanded to Assessing Officer. Reassessment upheld, notice valid. Ex-parte moot. Order pronounced 13.08.2021.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the determination of fair market value of the property to the Assessing Officer. The reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 and the validity of the notice under section 148 were upheld. The issue of the ex-parte order was moot due to the remand. The order was pronounced on 13.08.2021 through video conferencing at Allahabad.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147.
2. Ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without providing reasonable opportunity.
3. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 148.
4. Determination of property value under section 50C.
5. Assessment of capital gains by lower authorities.
6. Right to raise new grounds of appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reassessment on the grounds that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the limitation period. However, it was established that the notice under section 148 was issued on 7.1.2010, and the assessee did not file any return in response. Consequently, the notice under section 143(2) issued on 29.06.2010 was within the limitation period. The reassessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 was upheld as valid, and the ground was dismissed.

2. Ex-parte Order Passed by CIT(A):
This ground became infructuous as the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination of the fair market value of the property. Therefore, the ex-parte order issue was dismissed.

3. Validity of Proceedings Initiated under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not quantify the escaped income while recording reasons for reopening under section 148, arguing that the reopening was based on suspicion. However, it was noted that the notice under section 148 was issued within four years from the end of the assessment year, making the quantification of escaped income unnecessary at that stage. The primary facts regarding the transaction were on record, and the objection was found to be without merit. The validity of the notice under section 148 was upheld.

4. Determination of Property Value under Section 50C:
The assessee objected to the adoption of the deemed full value consideration under section 50C, claiming the sale consideration stated in the sale deed was the actual fair market price. The Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value as required under section 50C(2). The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the DVO and decide as per law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5. Assessment of Capital Gains by Lower Authorities:
The lower authorities were criticized for arbitrarily determining the capital gains. Given the reassessment of the fair market value, this issue was indirectly addressed by setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer.

6. Right to Raise New Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee reserved the right to raise any fresh grounds of appeal before the hearing, but this was not substantively addressed in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the key issue of determining the fair market value of the property being remanded to the Assessing Officer. The reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 and the validity of the notice under section 148 were upheld. The ex-parte order issue was rendered moot due to the remand. The order was pronounced on 13.08.2021 through video conferencing at Allahabad.

---