Valid notice to a dissolved firm's member supports best judgment assessment after non-compliance under tax law.

Under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act, notice to a dissolved firm may be validly served on any member of the firm or a person acting for the business, because the statutory provisions continued the firm and its members as liable for assessment. Where repeated opportunities and extensions were given, an explanation that records were with another brother did not amount to sufficient cause for failure to file the return or produce accounts. Once valid notice was served and non-compliance followed, the conditions for a best judgment assessment were satisfied, and a later or unnecessary notice did not undermine proceedings already validly commenced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notices issued under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act were validly served on a member or agent of a dissolved firm for the purpose of assessment; (ii) whether the assessee showed sufficient cause for failure to file the return and produce accounts; (iii) whether the best judgment assessment under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act was lawful.

Issue (i): Whether notices issued under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act were validly served on a member or agent of a dissolved firm for the purpose of assessment.

Analysis: Sections 35 and 56 treated a discontinued or dissolved firm, and also its members, as liable to assessment and tax for the firm's income. On that footing, service of notice on any member of the dissolved concern, or on a person acting for the business, was sufficient for valid commencement of assessment proceedings. Section 78 did not displace the specific machinery contained in those provisions.

Conclusion: The notices were validly served and the issue was answered in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee showed sufficient cause for failure to file the return and produce accounts.

Analysis: The correspondence showed repeated opportunities, extensions of time, and continued assurances to comply over a long period. The explanation that records were with another brother did not legally justify non-compliance in the circumstances found.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was established and the issue was answered against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the best judgment assessment under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act was lawful.

Analysis: Once a valid notice had been served and the assessee failed to comply, the statutory conditions for proceeding under Section 31(4) were satisfied. A later or superfluous notice did not invalidate proceedings already validly initiated.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessment was lawful and the issue was answered in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the validity of the assessment proceedings and the resulting assessment, with costs awarded to Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Hyderabad Income Tax Act, service of notice on a member or authorised representative of a dissolved firm is sufficient to bind the firm for assessment purposes, and failure to comply after valid notice permits a best judgment assessment.

---