Reassessment notice under section 143(2) not required without a valid return; unexplained expenditure and short-term capital gains upheld.

Notice under section 143(2) was not required where no valid return had been filed in response to notice under section 148 within the time allowed; a belated or non est return did not trigger that procedural mandate, so reassessment under sections 147 and 144 was upheld. On merits, the assessee failed to prove third-party funding, identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, or supporting bank records for the freehold charges, so the amount was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Revenue's treatment of capital gains, rejection of the cost of improvement claim, 10% disallowance of expenses, and characterization of the gains as short-term capital gains were all sustained for want of proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) when the assessee had not filed a valid return in response to notice under section 148 within the time allowed. (ii) Whether the additions relating to freehold charges, sale consideration, disallowance of expenses, and characterization of capital gains were sustainable on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) when the assessee had not filed a valid return in response to notice under section 148 within the time allowed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 139, 142(1), 143(2), 144, 147 and 148 requires a valid return before the procedural mandate of notice under section 143(2) can operate. A return filed beyond the time allowed under the notice under section 148, or merely by seeking to treat an earlier return as a return in response to that notice, was held not to be a valid return in the facts of the case. Since no valid return came into existence within the permitted time, the Assessing Officer was not obliged to issue notice under section 143(2), and the assessment could validly proceed under sections 147 and 144.

Conclusion: The challenge to reassessment on the ground of absence of notice under section 143(2) failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions relating to freehold charges, sale consideration, disallowance of expenses, and characterization of capital gains were sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The assessee failed to produce verifiable evidence to prove that the freehold charges were funded by the alleged third party, or to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the claimed arrangement. The bank records and corroborative material were not produced, and the confirmation relied upon was found insufficient. In these circumstances, the freehold charges were treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, the capital gains were assessed in the assessee's hands, the claim for treating the amount as cost of improvement was rejected, the 10% disallowance of expenses was sustained for want of proof, and the gains were treated as short-term capital gains because the assessee did not establish an earlier acquisition date.

Conclusion: The additions and the characterization adopted by the Revenue authorities were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed in entirety and the assessment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Notice under section 143(2) is mandatory only where a valid return has been filed in response to notice under section 148 within the time allowed; a belated or non est return does not trigger that requirement, and in the absence of proof supporting third-party funding or claimed expenditure, the assessed additions may be upheld.

---