Reassessment under Section 147 upheld despite late Section 143(2) notice, Section 68 addition confirmed for unproven creditors

ITAT Delhi dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The tribunal held that notice under Section 143(2) issued on 12/09/2017 was valid despite being issued after the time limit for filing return in response to Section 148 notice. The AO had sufficient reason to believe income escaped assessment, making the reopening valid. Sanction under Section 151 was properly obtained. Addition under Section 68 was upheld as the assessee failed to prove identity, capacity, and genuineness of creditors. The reassessment order was deemed valid and all grounds of appeal were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under Section 147/143(3) without notice under Section 143(2).
2. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) before filing return in response to notice under Section 148.
3. Reassessment proceedings initiated without independent application of mind by the AO.
4. Validity of sanction under Section 151 of the IT Act.
5. Jurisdictional validity of the assessment.
6. Addition under Section 68 regarding realization from sale of investments.
7. Addition under Section 68 regarding share application money and unexplained cash credits.

Summary:

Issue 1 & 2: Validity of Assessment without Notice under Section 143(2)
The Assessee argued that the assessment under Section 147/143(3) was invalid as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued against the return filed on 02/11/2017 in response to notice under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 143(2) issued on 12/09/2017 was valid, as the Assessee failed to file the return within the stipulated time. The Tribunal dismissed Grounds 1 & 2, stating that the Assessee cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

Issue 3: Reassessment Proceedings without Independent Application of Mind
The Assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without the AO's independent application of mind. The Tribunal held that only a prima facie opinion of income escapement is required for reopening the assessment, and the AO had sufficient material to form such an opinion. Ground 3 was dismissed.

Issue 4: Validity of Sanction under Section 151
The Assessee argued that the sanction under Section 151 showed mechanical satisfaction by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the sanction process, as the required satisfaction was duly recorded. Ground 4 was dismissed.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional Validity of Assessment
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to establish how the reopening of the assessment violated Section 147 read with Section 148. Ground 5 was dismissed.

Issue 6 & 7: Addition under Section 68
The Assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 7,54,01,000/- and Rs. 8,18,01,000/- under Section 68, arguing that the amounts were from the sale of investments and share application money, respectively. The Tribunal found that the Assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors and transactions. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the Assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. Grounds 6 & 7 were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Assessee was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment and the additions made under Section 68, finding no merit in the Assessee's grounds.

---