Valid notice and best judgment assessment may stand where the assessee was not misled and default persisted.

A notice requiring a return was not invalid merely because it used alternative descriptions of the assessee's capacity, where the assessee was not misled and had in fact understood the requirement. A later disclosure of additional income did not make a fresh notice under section 23(2) necessary, because no revised return under section 22(3) had been filed and the earlier notice remained effective. An assessment under section 23(4) remained competent despite a notice under section 23(3) where default in complying with the earlier statutory notices persisted. No question of law was shown to arise on the reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under section 22(2) was invalid because it did not specify the capacity in which the assessee was required to furnish the return; (ii) whether a fresh notice under section 23(2) was necessary after the assessee disclosed further omissions in income; (iii) whether an assessment could still be made under section 23(4) despite a notice under section 23(3).

Issue (i): Whether the notice under section 22(2) was invalid because it did not specify the capacity in which the assessee was required to furnish the return.

Analysis: The notice required a return and contained alternative descriptions of the assessee's capacity, none of which was struck out. The assessee had already been assessed in prior years as a Hindu undivided family and in fact filed the return on that basis. The record also showed that the assessee understood the requirement and was not misled by the form of the notice.

Conclusion: The notice under section 22(2) was not invalid, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a fresh notice under section 23(2) was necessary after the assessee disclosed further omissions in income.

Analysis: The assessee's later application was not treated as a revised return under section 22(3). Since no revised return was furnished, the earlier notice under section 23(2) did not require repetition merely because the assessee later volunteered additional income. The statutory scheme did not make a fresh notice indispensable on those facts.

Conclusion: A fresh notice under section 23(2) was not necessary.

Issue (iii): Whether an assessment could still be made under section 23(4) despite a notice under section 23(3).

Analysis: Even after a notice under section 23(3), the assessment could proceed under section 23(4) where there was default in complying with the notice under section 22(4) or section 23(2). The existence of a notice under section 23(3) did not prevent a best judgment assessment when the statutory default remained uncured.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 23(4) was competent.

Final Conclusion: No question of law was shown to arise for a reference, and the application failed in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice is not invalid merely because it uses alternative descriptions of the assessee's capacity when the assessee is not misled, and a best judgment assessment remains permissible under section 23(4) notwithstanding a section 23(3) notice where default under the earlier statutory notices persists.

---