Appeal partly allowed: LTCG addition deleted, Section 54B deduction allowed; Section 147 proceedings upheld.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition on account of LTCG and allowing the deduction under Section 54B. The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the ex-parte assessment were upheld, and the charging of interest was deemed consequential.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order under Sections 147/144.
2. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the assessee.
3. Confirmation of addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and applicability of Section 50C.
4. Denial of deduction under Section 54B.
5. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment Order under Sections 147/144:
The assessee challenged the assessment order on the grounds of jurisdiction, limitation, and lack of proper approval. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings based on information received from the Director of Income Tax (I&CI) regarding the sale of agricultural land and the application of Section 50C. The AO recorded reasons and obtained prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT). The tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, as the AO had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided to the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the ex-parte assessment order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to be heard. The tribunal observed that multiple notices were issued to the assessee, and despite this, there was non-compliance. Hence, the tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim of inadequate opportunity and upheld the assessment proceedings.

3. Confirmation of Addition on Account of LTCG and Applicability of Section 50C:
The AO calculated LTCG based on the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar, which was higher than the actual sale consideration. The assessee contended that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset, and the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed should be considered. The tribunal noted that the Tehsildar confirmed the land was within municipal limits, making it a capital asset. The tribunal also referred to various judicial precedents, concluding that for the purpose of Section 54B, the actual sale consideration should be considered, not the deemed value under Section 50C. Therefore, the tribunal held that the assessee had correctly invested the amount in new agricultural land, and no addition was required on account of LTCG.

4. Denial of Deduction under Section 54B:
The AO denied the deduction under Section 54B, stating the new agricultural land was purchased after the due date for filing the return. The tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Shankar Lal Sharma, which held that the extended due date under Section 139(4) should be considered. The tribunal concluded that the assessee had invested the capital gains within the stipulated period and was eligible for the deduction under Section 54B.

5. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The tribunal noted that the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is consequential. Since the primary addition on account of LTCG was deleted, the interest charged would also be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition on account of LTCG and allowing the deduction under Section 54B. The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the ex-parte assessment were upheld, and the charging of interest was deemed consequential.

---