Assessable capacity in tax notices need not be specified where the statute prescribes no formal requirement, and assessment remains valid.

A notice under section 22(2) need not be issued in a prescribed form requiring the Income-tax Officer to strike off inapplicable capacities or specify the exact assessable capacity. The recipient is better placed to identify whether the return should be filed as an individual, HUF, firm, company or association of individuals. Because the statute imposed no such formal requirement, omission to specify the capacity did not invalidate the notice or the assessment made under it. The proceedings were therefore upheld and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to strike off the inapplicable capacities in the notice issued under section 22(2) and clearly indicate the capacity in which the return was required. (ii) Whether the notice issued without such indication, and the assessment made pursuant to it, were void.

Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to strike off the inapplicable capacities in the notice issued under section 22(2) and clearly indicate the capacity in which the return was required.

Analysis: The notice under section 22(2) is not prescribed in a statutory form requiring the officer to eliminate irrelevant capacities. At the stage of issuing the notice, the department may not yet know whether the recipient is assessable as an individual, Hindu undivided family, firm, company, or association of individuals. The person receiving the notice is in a better position to know the correct capacity in which the return must be filed.

Conclusion: The obligation was not on the Income-tax Officer, and the contention of the assessee failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice issued without such indication, and the assessment made pursuant to it, were void.

Analysis: Since the Act did not require the officer to specify the assessable capacity in the notice, the omission did not invalidate the notice or the assessment. The notice addressed to the firm name also indicated the intended capacity sufficiently for the purpose of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice and the assessment were not void.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on both questions, and the assessment proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes no formal requirement in the notice under section 22(2), the recipient must identify and act upon the correct assessable capacity, and omission by the taxing officer to strike off inapplicable descriptions does not invalidate the notice or the resulting assessment.

---