Delayed service of demand notices does not by itself invalidate assessments where no statutory time limit exists.

In the absence of a statutory time limit for service of a demand notice, delayed communication of an assessment order or demand notice does not by itself invalidate a completed assessment. The record also showed timely despatch in some years and subsequent correspondence giving the assessee knowledge of the demands. On maintainability, a person who undertakes the dissolved firm's tax liabilities may competently sign and prosecute the firm's appeals, including where the partnership deed and dissolution arrangement place liability on the successor. The contrary revenue objection was rejected as distinguishable, and the appeals were treated as maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inordinate delay in communicating the assessment orders and demand notices rendered the assessments invalid and unenforceable. (ii) Whether the appeals filed for and on behalf of the dissolved firm by Poonamchand Toshniwal were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether inordinate delay in communicating the assessment orders and demand notices rendered the assessments invalid and unenforceable.

Analysis: The delay objection was tested against authorities holding that, where the statute does not prescribe a limitation period for issue or service of demand notice, belated service by itself does not nullify the underlying assessment. The decisions relied upon by the assessee were treated as distinguishable because they concerned executive action, whereas the assessment orders were passed by the income-tax authorities in a quasi-judicial capacity. The record also showed that the assessment orders and demand notices had in fact been despatched in time in several years, and that the assessee had knowledge of the demands through subsequent correspondence.

Conclusion: The delay in service of the assessment orders or demand notices did not invalidate the assessments, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals filed for and on behalf of the dissolved firm by Poonamchand Toshniwal were maintainable.

Analysis: The objection to competence was examined with reference to the provisions governing who may sign and present appeals for a firm, the position of minors admitted to partnership benefits, and the effect of the dissolution deed by which Poonamchand Toshniwal undertook responsibility for the tax liabilities. On that footing, he was treated as standing in the shoes of the persons liable for the firm's tax obligations and as entitled to prosecute the appeals. The earlier authority relied on by the Revenue was held distinguishable, while the later authority recognising the right of the successor to continue proceedings was preferred.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable and Poonamchand Toshniwal had competence to file and continue them.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessments failed on merits, and the assessee's appeals were not entitled to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory time limit, delay in serving a demand notice does not by itself invalidate a completed assessment, and a successor who has stepped into the liabilities of the assessee-firm may competently prosecute the firm's tax appeal.

---