Best Judgment Assessment can determine income and tax payable, supporting a valid demand even where return lacks verification.

An assessment under the best-judgment power is valid even if no prior procedural notice was issued, because the assessment power encompasses determining total taxable income and the sum payable; consequently, a demand notice based on such an assessment is lawful. A return lacking signature and verification does not qualify as an 'incomplete return' solely requiring evidential inquiry; instead it constitutes failure to furnish a proper return, permitting a best-judgment assessment. Operatively, best-judgment assessments may include fixation of tax liability and sustain subsequent demand proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment made without issuing a notice under Section 22(4) is not an assessment to the best of judgment as contemplated by Section 23(4) and is illegal; (ii) Whether a notice of demand under Section 29 is illegal where issued in respect of an assessment made under Section 23(4) if the Income Tax Officer has not been conferred power to determine the sum payable; (iii) Whether a return under Section 22(2) lacking signatures and verification is an "incomplete return" under Section 23(2) so as to preclude a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4).

Issue (i): Whether an assessment made without issuing a notice under Section 22(4) is not an assessment to the best of judgment as contemplated by Section 23(4) and is illegal.

Analysis: Section 23(4) applies where there is failure to make a return under Section 22(1) or (2) or failure to comply with terms of a notice under Section 22(4); it does not follow that every case under Section 23(4) requires non-compliance with Section 22(4). The term "assessment" in Section 23(4) is to be read in light of the definition of "assessee" and includes determining total taxable income and the sum payable thereon.

Conclusion: The assessment made under Section 23(4) without issuance of a notice under Section 22(4) is valid and not illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice of demand under Section 29 is illegal when issued in respect of an assessment made under Section 23(4) if the Income Tax Officer has not been expressly empowered to determine the sum payable.

Analysis: The language of Section 23(4) permits the Income Tax Officer to assess the total income and determine the sum payable as part of the assessment; prior case law on differing statutory contexts is distinguishable. Therefore a valid assessment under Section 23(4) can support issuance of a notice under Section 29.

Conclusion: A notice of demand under Section 29 is not illegal when issued in respect of an assessment made under Section 23(4).

Issue (iii): Whether a return made under Section 22(2) without signatures and verification is an "incomplete return" under Section 23(2) thereby precluding a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4).

Analysis: Section 22(2) mandates that a return be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner; Section 52 and criminal sanction under Section 177 IPC underscore the importance of verification. The incompleteness contemplated by Section 23(2) refers to deficiencies requiring evidential inquiry, not mere absence of signature or verification. Precedent of this Court holds that absence of verification and signature amounts to failure to submit a proper return and justifies a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4).

Conclusion: A return lacking signatures and verification is not an "incomplete return" within Section 23(2) for the purposes of avoiding a best judgment assessment; the Income Tax Officer was entitled to proceed under Section 23(4). The answer to this issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The issues are answered against the assessee; the assessment under Section 23(4) and the subsequent notice under Section 29 are valid, and the absence of signatures and verification on the return does not render the assessment invalid under Section 23(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Where a return required by Section 22(2) is not in the prescribed form or not verified, the defect amounts to failure to furnish a proper return permitting a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4), and such an assessment includes determination of the sum payable and supports issuance of a notice under Section 29.

---