Reassessment notice defect and unexplained property investment: clerical error and later affidavits did not save the assessee.

An incorrect assessment year in a section 143(2) notice did not invalidate reassessment where the notice was issued and served within limitation, the assessee participated in the proceedings, and no timely objection was raised before the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. The defect was treated as inadvertent and non-fatal because the assessee was sufficiently put to notice in substance. The investment in purchase of immovable property was also treated as unexplained because the registered sale deed recorded cash payment and the assessee failed to produce credible contrary evidence; later affidavits were regarded as an afterthought and could not displace the registered document. The appellate challenge failed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was vitiated for want of a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the notice mentioning an incorrect assessment year. (ii) Whether the investment in purchase of immovable property was liable to be treated as unexplained under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was vitiated for want of a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the notice mentioning an incorrect assessment year.

Analysis: The notice under section 143(2) was issued and served within limitation, and the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings without raising any timely objection before the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. The incorrect mention of the assessment year in the notice was treated as an inadvertent omission in relation to the return filed in response to section 148 notice. The defect was held to be non-fatal because the assessee was sufficiently put to notice of the proceedings and accepted the notice in substance.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not invalidated on this ground and the objection was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the investment in purchase of immovable property was liable to be treated as unexplained under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The registered sale deed recorded payment of sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000 in cash, and the assessee failed to establish a contrary factual position by credible evidence. Later affidavits from the deed writer, vendor, and witnesses were treated as an afterthought and could not override the contents of the registered document. Applying the principle that documentary terms cannot ordinarily be contradicted by oral evidence, the investment remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The addition as unexplained investment was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on both the jurisdictional objection and the merits of the addition, and the assessment was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A duly issued and served statutory notice is not vitiated by an inadvertent clerical error when the assessee participates without timely objection, and the recitals of a registered sale deed ordinarily prevail over subsequent oral or affidavit evidence in determining the source of investment.

---