IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI O.P.MEENA, AM ITA No.93/SRT/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Bhadresh Maganbhai Patel ITO-Ward 1(3)(6) 1, Revanagar Society, Adajan, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat. Gate, Surat. PAN/GIR No.AORPP6662C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mehul R. Shah Revenue by Shri B. P. K. Panda (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 26/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 30/09/2019 ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH (J.M): assessee has filed present appeal against order dated 05.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2 Majura Gate, Surat [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] relevant to A.Y.2012-13. 2. assessee has raised following grounds: - 1 . On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex -parte or der without gi ving sufficient opportunity of being heard and without consid ering facts and explanati on gi ven by assessee. 2. On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not adj udicating grounds of appeal. He ought to have passed s peaking order after giving reason for his decision. 3. On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Assessing officer has erred in re - opening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 . 4. On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Assessing officer has erred in taxing capital gain in hands of assessee when propert y belongs to his father. 5. On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Assessing Officer has erred in makin g addition 3,71,53,607/ - on account of Long Term Capital Gain 2 ITA No.93/SRT/2018 A.Y.2012-13 by adopting DV O's report for calculation of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. 6. On facts and circumstance s of case as well as law on subj ect, learned Assessing Officer has erred in not allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 1,69,00,500/ u/s 54B of I.T. Act, 1961. 7. On facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subj ect, learne d Assessing Officer has erred in allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 4,64,321/ - instead of Rs. 10,25,400/ - as clai med by assessee u/s. 54F of I.T. Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Act may kindl y be quashed and/or addition/disallowance made by assessing offi cer may please be deleted. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of appeal. 3. brief facts of case are that AIR information was received to fact that assessee has entered into high value financial transaction i.e. sale of immovable property value of Rs.7,72,87,000/- dated 18.10.2011 during year under consideration. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of Act dated 18.03.2015 was issued and served upon assessee. In pursuance of notice, assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 showing total income at Rs.1,73,590/-. Assessee requested to provide copy of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. copy of reason recorded was given to assessee on 31.07.2015. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of Act were issued and served upon assessee. On verification, it was found that assessee has sold immovable property in sum of Rs.7,72,87,000/-situated at Moje gam Adajan Revenue Survey Block No.65/3, TPS 31 (Adajan) FP 125, Agriculture land Taluka City, Surat. income has been shown in return of income. Valuation Officer was appointed who ascertained fair market value @ Rs.35.89 per sq. mtr. X 7183 sq. mtr. = Rs.2,57,800/-. Accordingly, notice for raising addition in sum of Rs.3,66,19,770/- was given and after reply of assessee, long term capital gain was assessed to tune of Rs.3,71,53,607/-. Total income of assessee was assessed to tune of Rs.3,73,27,200/-. Feeling aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before 3 ITA No.93/SRT/2018 A.Y.2012-13 CIT(A) who dismissed appeal of assessee, therefore, assessee has filed present appeal before us. 4. We have heard argument advanced by Ld. Representative of parties and perused record. At very outset, Ld. Representative of assessee has argued that CIT(A) has decided matter of controversy in absence of assessee and without giving opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law, therefore, in said circumstances, order of CIT(A) in question is wrong and against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on other hand, Ld. Representative of Department has refuted said contention. On appraisal of order of CIT(A) dated 05.10.2017, we noticed that CIT(A) decided matter of controversy in absence of assessee without giving opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is against principle of natural justice. proper and reasonable opportunity is required to be given to assessee before deciding matter of controversy in accordance with law. Therefore, in said circumstances, we are of view that order of CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in eyes of law, therefore, we set aside finding of CIT(A) on all issues and restore matter before CIT(A) to decide matter afresh by giving opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law. 5. In result, appeal filed by assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on this 30/09/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (O. P. MEENA) (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 30/09/2019/Vijay Pal Singh, Sr.PS Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT CIT (A) ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar, Surat Bhadresh Maganbhai Patel v. ITO, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat