Defective return treatment upheld where audited accounts were filed late and no patent illegality in the authorities' orders was shown.

A return may be treated as invalid where the taxpayer fails to cure a defect and submit audited accounts within the time allowed under the statutory scheme. Here, deficiency notices were issued and an opportunity to rectify the defect was given, but the audited accounts were produced only after the return had already been treated as defective. In the absence of any patent illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the original, appellate, or revisional orders, the challenge to those orders could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the return filed for the assessment year 1997-98 could be treated as invalid for want of audited accounts and whether the orders rejecting the petitioner's challenge suffered from any patent illegality or irregularity.

Analysis: The petitioner was afforded opportunity to cure the defect in the return and to file audited accounts. Deficiency notices were issued, and the return was informed to be liable to rejection as defective under the statutory scheme. The audited accounts were produced only long after the permitted time and after the return had already been treated as invalid. In these circumstances, the challenge to the original, appellate, and revisional orders could not be sustained, as no patent illegality or irregularity was shown in the manner in which the authorities dealt with the defective return and the subsequent revision.

Conclusion: The return was validly treated as invalid, and the petitioner's challenge to the orders of the authorities fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a defective return is not rectified within the time allowed and the required audited accounts are produced only belatedly, the authorities may treat the return as invalid, and such action does not suffer from illegality absent a demonstrated jurisdictional or procedural error.

---