Belated return after reassessment does not void assessment absent section 143(2) notice; unsupported export-sales addition deleted.

A belated return filed after reassessment proceedings had already begun did not make the assessment invalid merely because notice under section 143(2) was not issued; the omission was not fatal where notice under section 148 had been issued and the assessment machinery was already in motion. The deletion of the addition for alleged understatement of export sales was upheld because the assessee's reconciliation, supported by invoices, shipping documents, DGFT details and debit notes, showed that part of the amount related to damaged goods and part to exports already accounted for in the earlier year, while the Revenue failed to prove that the entire turnover accrued in the year under consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) where the return was filed belatedly after reassessment proceedings had already commenced; (ii) whether the deletion of the addition made on account of alleged understatement of export sales was justified.

Issue (i): whether the assessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) where the return was filed belatedly after reassessment proceedings had already commenced.

Analysis: The return was filed after notice under section 148 and after the Assessing Officer had already set the assessment machinery in motion by issuing notice under section 142(1). The assessment process was not dependent on the delayed filing of the return. In those circumstances, the omission to issue notice under section 143(2) on the belated return did not render the assessment void.

Conclusion: The assessment was not invalid on account of non-issuance of notice under section 143(2); the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the deletion of the addition made on account of alleged understatement of export sales was justified.

Analysis: The appellate authority accepted the assessee's reconciliation supported by invoices, shipping documents, DGFT details and debit notes showing that part of the disputed amount related to damaged goods and part pertained to exports already accounted for in the preceding year. The Revenue did not establish that the entire disputed amount had accrued as export sales in the year under consideration, and the estimated enhancement was found to be unsupported by the material on record.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded only on the procedural validity issue under section 143(2), while the addition relating to export sales was sustained as deleted, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed return filed after reassessment proceedings have already commenced does not, by itself, make the assessment invalid for want of notice under section 143(2), and an addition for alleged understatement of sales cannot stand without reliable evidence that the disputed turnover accrued in the relevant year.

---