Best judgment assessment stands where one unexplained default remains; partial explanation does not justify cancellation.

A best judgment assessment under section 23(4) is sustained if any one specified default exists, and cancellation under section 27 requires sufficient cause for the default that actually supports the assessment. A partial explanation covering only one default does not undo an unexplained default that independently justifies the best judgment assessment. The reference to a return in a section 22(4) notice was not treated as an extension of time for filing the return under section 22(2). The assessee was therefore not entitled to cancellation merely because one default was explained, and the question was answered in the negative.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who has committed more than one default leading to a best judgment assessment can have that assessment cancelled under section 27 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 if sufficient cause is shown for only one of the defaults.

Analysis: Section 23(4) authorises a best judgment assessment where any one of the specified defaults exists. Section 27 permits cancellation only when the assessee satisfies the authority that he was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return or complying with the notice, and the statutory scheme requires the explanation to cover the default that supports the assessment. A partial explanation for one default does not neutralise an unexplained default that independently sustains the best judgment assessment. The mention of the return in a notice under section 22(4) did not amount to an extension of time for filing the return under section 22(2).

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to cancellation of the best judgment assessment merely because one of the defaults was explained; the unexplained default under section 22(2) was sufficient to sustain the assessment, and the question was answered in the negative.

---