Statutory notice period requirements govern best judgment assessment validity when defective notice cannot be cured by later extension.

A statutory notice under Section 22(2) had to allow at least thirty days for filing the return; service of only twenty-nine days made the notice invalid. A later five-day extension did not cure the defect because the illegality attached to the original notice itself. As the best judgment assessment under Section 23(4) depended on a valid statutory notice, the defective notice went to the root of the assessment and prevented it from being sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 22(2) giving less than thirty days' time to file the return was valid, and whether an assessment made under Section 23(4) could stand when the initial notice was illegal.

Analysis: The required notice period under the statutory rule was at least thirty days. The assessee was given only twenty-nine days, so the notice failed to comply with the mandatory requirement. The later extension of five days did not cure the defect because the illegality attached to the original notice itself. Since the assessment under Section 23(4) depended upon a valid statutory notice, the defect in the notice went to the root of the best judgment assessment.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 22(2) was illegal, and the assessment under Section 23(4) could not be sustained.

---