Valid income-tax return and assessment under Section 23(3) sustained despite incomplete particulars and approximate income statement.

A return is not rendered invalid merely because it omits particulars required by the prescribed form or states income as approximate. On that basis, the income-tax officer could accept the return as valid and proceed with assessment under Section 23(3) when not satisfied that it was correct and complete. The incompleteness of the return did not nullify the assessment proceedings or deprive the appellate authority of jurisdiction. A later attempt to characterise the assessment as one under Section 23(4) was too late and, in any event, depended on facts not investigated below. The penalty under Section 28(1) was therefore within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the return filed by the assessee was a valid return so as to sustain assessment under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 28(1).

Analysis: The return was not invalid merely because it omitted the particulars required by the prescribed form and was accompanied by a statement describing the income as approximate. The income-tax officer was entitled to accept the return as a valid return, and, not being satisfied that it was correct and complete, to proceed with assessment under Section 23(3). The incompleteness of the return did not destroy the assessment proceedings or deprive the appellate authority of jurisdiction. The further contention that the assessment must be treated as one under Section 23(4) was raised too late and, in any event, depended on facts not investigated below.

Conclusion: The return was valid, the assessment under Section 23(3) was competent, and the penalty imposed under Section 28(1) was within jurisdiction.

---