Mandatory return particulars and agent service upheld under income-tax notice rules, sustaining assessment and Revenue success.

A return that omitted particulars required by the prescribed form was treated as no valid return because the Act and the return form together imposed a mandatory obligation to furnish a proper return; assessment under Section 23(4) was therefore sustained. On notice, the provision allowing service by post or as a summons, and the special mode for a firm or Hindu undivided family, was held not to make service on an agent exclusive or invalid; service on the agent was upheld as valid. The Revenue thus succeeded on both issues, with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a return that omitted the particulars required by the prescribed form could be treated as no return, justifying assessment under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922; (ii) Whether service of notice on an agent was good service in the case of a Hindu undivided family under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether a return that omitted the particulars required by the prescribed form could be treated as no return, justifying assessment under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The prescribed form required the particulars stated by the Act itself. Section 22(2) imposed the obligation to furnish a proper return, and Rule 19, embodying the form of return, had the same force as a section of the Act. A return which wholly ignored those requirements could not be treated as a valid return.

Conclusion: The defective return was rightly treated as no return, and assessment under Section 23(4) was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether service of notice on an agent was good service in the case of a Hindu undivided family under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 63(1) permitted service of notice by post or as a summons under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Section 63(2) provided a special mode of addressing notices to a firm or Hindu undivided family, but the use of the word "may" showed that this was not the exclusive mode of service. The construction urged against service on an agent was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: Service of notice on the agent was valid, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both questions referred were answered against the assessees. The assessment under Section 23(4) and the service of notice on the agent were sustained, and the Revenue succeeded on costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and prescribed form make specified particulars mandatory, a return omitting them may be treated as no return, and a statutory provision for notice to a firm or Hindu undivided family does not exclude otherwise valid service on an agent unless exclusivity is clearly expressed.

---