Assessment reopening validity upheld despite delayed return filing under section 148 notice

ITAT Mumbai upheld the validity of assessment reopening, finding no evidence that reasons were recorded after notice issuance, rejecting assessee's presumption-based arguments. The tribunal held that delayed return filing under section 148 notice remained valid as AO accepted it and issued proper section 143(2) notice. Assessment under section 143(3) was deemed legally valid. Natural justice denial claims regarding impounded documents were rejected as copies were available with assessee. Multiple grounds of appeal were dismissed, confirming the assessment order's validity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of jurisdiction for assessment under Section 147.
2. Validity of the return of income on which assessment was made.
3. Validity of the assessment order due to lack of notice under Section 143(2).
4. Alleged violation of natural justice.
5. Confirmation of invoking Section 69 of the IT Act.
6. Confirmation of addition to the total income and ignoring documentary evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Jurisdiction for Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the validity of reassessment under Section 147 on two grounds: lack of credible information and improper recording of reasons after issuing notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) based the reopening on an enquiry report from the DGIT (Investigation), which was considered a credible source. The AO was not required to conduct further inquiries before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had a reasonable belief based on the investigation report, and the reopening was valid.

2. Validity of the Return of Income on Which Assessment Was Made:
The assessee contended that the return filed on 12/08/2014 was invalid as it was filed beyond the time prescribed in the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the AO accepted the return despite the delay and issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 12/08/2014, which was subsequent to the filing of the return. The Tribunal held that the AO validly completed the assessment under Section 143(3), and the return was considered valid for assessment purposes.

3. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Lack of Notice Under Section 143(2):
The assessee argued that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after filing the return, making the assessment void. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 143(2) was served on 12/08/2014, after the return was filed on 11/08/2014. The Tribunal dismissed the contention that the notice's date (14/07/2014) invalidated the assessment, considering it a typographical error covered under Section 292B. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order.

4. Alleged Violation of Natural Justice:
The assessee claimed that the assessment was completed in violation of natural justice as documents related to bogus purchases were not returned by the investigation wing. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced copies of relevant documents before the lower authorities, indicating they were available with the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue of merit of the addition was already decided in favor of the assessee, rendering this issue academic and infructuous.

5. Confirmation of Invoking Section 69 of the IT Act:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided judgment excerpt. However, it is implied that the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions on merit would affect the confirmation of invoking Section 69.

6. Confirmation of Addition to the Total Income and Ignoring Documentary Evidence:
The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's appeal on the merits of the addition, deleting the additions based on the theory of peak credit and finding the AO's conclusions unsustainable in law. The Tribunal reiterated that the addition was based on surmises and conjectures, and the AO failed to issue notices to alleged bogus suppliers or find corroborative material during the survey.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals regarding the validity of jurisdiction, the validity of the return of income, and the validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, and the issue of confirming the addition was already decided in favor of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed to the extent of the grounds recalled.

---