Continuing power to call for accounts after return filed supports best judgment assessment for non-compliance.

Section 22(4) was construed as conferring a continuing power to require production of accounts even after a return had been filed, because the text contains no restriction limiting that power to the pre-return stage. Section 23(3) was treated as dealing with a narrower inquiry on specified points and not as cutting down the broader notice power under section 22(4). On that construction, non-compliance with a notice under section 22(4) could justify best judgment assessment under section 23(4), even where the notice was issued after the return, supporting the Revenue's position.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income Tax Officer could, after a return had been made and evidence had been produced under section 23(2), require production of accounts under section 22(4) and, on non-compliance, make an assessment under section 23(4).

Analysis: The statutory language of section 22(4) was held to contain no restriction confining the power to call for accounts to the stage before the return was filed. The presence of express limitations in that sub-section made it inappropriate to imply an additional limitation. Section 23(3), which permits requisition of evidence on specified points during the inquiry after a return, was treated as not controlling the broader power under section 22(4). The wording of section 23(4) was construed as applying the penalty of best judgment assessment to failure to comply with a notice under section 22(4) even when the notice was issued after the return had been made.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative. The Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction to call for accounts after the return was filed, and failure to produce them could attract assessment under section 23(4), in favour of the Revenue.

---