https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468874 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. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 24 May 2026 18:57:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468874 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468874