SRI BASANT KUMAR PATIL V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

ITA/942/2007

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the assessee, Sri Basant Kumar Patil, and the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had set aside the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT's decision was based on the defective notice issued, which did not mention the block period. The High Court of Karnataka examined whether the omission of the block period in the notice invalidated the assessment and whether such a defect was curable under Section 292B of the Act. The court ultimately held that the notice was valid despite the omission and directed the Commissioner of Income-Tax to reassess the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727164 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. MICRO LABS LTD., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT Vs. KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA, P.N. SASIKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. HOTEL BLUE MOON, MANISH MAHESHWARI Vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER, SHIRISH MADHUKAR DALVI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KULKARNI
• Keywords: Block assessment; Defective notice; Jurisdiction; Search and seizure; Undisclosed income
• Section: 132; 158BC; 260A; 292B; 158BG; 158BFA(2); 158BE; 158FA(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 2nd day of June 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA No.942 of 2007 C/w ITA No. 956 of 2007 ITA No.942 of 2007 BETWEEN: Sri Basant Kumar Patil No.176, VI Cross Gandhingar Bangalore …Appellant (By Sri Ashok Kulkarni for M/s. K.R. Prasad Advocates) AND: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Bangalore …Respondent This ITA filed U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 03-08-2007 passed in IT(SS)A No.5/Bang/2005 2 for the Block Assessment period 01-04-1987 to 21-08-1997, praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, in IT(SS)A No.5/Bang/2005 dated 03- 08-2007 and consequently uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) iii, Bangalore vide ITA No.61/W-7(1) CIT(A)III/99-2000 dated 03-11-2004 and cancel the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv), Circle-7(1), Bangalore vide order dated 28-10-1999. ITA No. 956 of 2007 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv) Circle – 5(1) C.R. Building Queen’s Road Bangalore …Appellants (By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate) AND: Sri Basanth Kumar Patil No.176, 6th Cross Gandhinagar Bangalore-560 009 …Respondent (By Sri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate For M/s K.R. Prasad) 3 This ITA filed U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 03-08-2007 passed in IT(SS)A No.5/Bang/2005 for the Block Assessment period 01-04-1987 to 21-08-1997, praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, in IT(SS)A No.5/Bang/2005 dated 03-08-2007 and confirming the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv), Circle-5(1), Bangalore. These ITAs coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T ITA 942/07 is an appeal by the assessee, whereas ITA 956/07 is an appeal by the Revenue, challenging the very same order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Brief facts of the case: 2. The assessee’s office and residential premises were searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter for short, referred to as the ‘Act’. During August - October 1997, certain documents relating to financial transactions with the Kannada film producers were seized. The assessee is the proprietor of M/s Basanth Bricks and M/s Basanth Constructions, Bangalore. During the 4 block period the assessee has carried on business in manufacture of table mould bricks as also manufacture and sale of crushed stone jelly. Transactions in property at Jakkasandra, Bangalore South Taluk have fetched him huge income. The seized material throws light on his attempts to extend his business acumen and skill to cover hotels and resorts also. He was also an Actor in Kannada Film Industry prior to block period. 3. In compliance with Section 158BC notice was issued on 20.01.1998 calling upon the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period mentioned in Section 158BA of the Act. On receipt of the said notice the assessee and his authorized representative Sri. V. Srinivasan, Chartered Accountant, appeared and furnished NIL return. The Assessing Authority after considering the seized materials, return filed by the assessee and also the books made available by the assessee about his various business, proceeded to pass order computing the total 5 undisclosed income as Rs.54,20,820-00 and levied tax at 60% there on in an amount of Rs.32,52,490-00 and also levied interest under Section 158FA(1) at 2%. In all a sum of Rs.33,82,590-00. He directed issue of demand notice. He also ordered that penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(2) are initiated separately. The said order was passed after obtaining approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 5, Bangalore under Section 158BG of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner held that as per Section 158BC(a), the Assessing Officer has issued notice requiring the assessee to file a return of his total income including undisclosed income for the block period. He is further required to give at least a period of 15 days for filing such return. The Assessing Officer has to mention the block period in the notice as per requirement of Section 158BC(a). As the said block period is not mentioned in the notice, he 6 felt that the notice is invalid and consequently the proceedings is also invalid and are liable to be cancelled. Therefore he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of block assessment. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was also of the view that the Assessing Officer has to mention the block period in the notice as per requirement of Section 158BC(a). As it is not mentioned, it is defective but that will not invalidate the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the assessment made by the Assessing Officer and directed assessment after issue of a valid notice under Section 158BC. The appeal was allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal. 7. ITA 956/07 was admitted on 11.06.2010 to consider the following substantial question of law: 7 “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer had issued a defective notice under Section 158BC of the Act and therefore the assessment was invalid as the provisions of Section 292B of the Act did not cure the said defect?” 8. In ITA 942/07 no substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission. However, the substantial question of law which is urged in this appeal is: “Whether, in view of prescription of limitation under Section 158BC of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice and then make the assessment order, as it would be barred by time?” 9. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length in respect of rival contentions, we were of the opinion that the following substantial question of law, which is not urged by both the parties and which is not formulated, do arise for our consideration in this appeal. 8 Accordingly, we have framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the notice issued under Section 158BC is invalid for non-mentioning of the block period in respect of which the said notice is issued?” 10. The learned Counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends that Section 158BE of the Act prescribes time limit for completion of the block assessment. It provides that order under Section 158BC shall be passed within one year from the end of the month in which the last of the authorizations for search under Section 132 was executed in respect of searches after 30th date of June, 1995 but before 1st day of January 1997 and two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorizations for search under Section 132 was executed in cases where search was initiated on or after the 1st day of January 1997. Therefore when the statute has prescribed the period of limitation within which an order has to be passed, by the 9 impugned order the appellate authority has extended the period of limitation, which it does not possess. Therefore the order directing the authorities to issue fresh notice and then make an order of assessment is one without jurisdiction and a valuable right accrued to the assesseee under the Act is sought to be taken away. Therefore the impugned order requires to be set aside. 11. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that though in the notice issued under Section 158BC, the period of block period is not mentioned, it is a curable defect in view of Section 292B of the Act. Therefore the appellate authorities were wrong in holding that it invalidates the notice as well as the assessment orders. Therefore he contends that the invalidation of the assessment order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 12. The learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of 10 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. MICRO LABS LTD., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 75 (Karn), wherein Section 292B of the Act came up for consideration in the context of a invalid notice issued under Section 158BC. It is held as under: “The purport of Section 292B is that in the event of any mistake, defect or omission in the notice or other proceedings, if the same is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act, the notice cannot be termed as invalid. The notice should be in conformity with and in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Act. The intent and purport as provided under section 158BC is to serve a notice on the assessee by providing a time of not less than 15 days and not more than 45 days. This is the purport and intent of the section. No extra time can be granted subsequently. Time to be granted is a minimum of 15 and maximum of 45 days. The same has to be specified in the notice. Hence, grant of extra time is without authority of law. It cannot validate an invalid notice. Moreover, it is relevant to note that the notice issued is on a 11 printed form wherein the details are required to be filled up. At the bottom of the notice, is a printed matter, which reads that the time to be granted shall not be less than 15 days. In spite of this, the time granted to the assessee is less than 15 days. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been a violation of law. Therefore, when the sum and substance of the notice issued to the assessee is not in conformity with the purpose of the Act, section 292B has no application. Hence, question No.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Further, dealing with 5th substantial question of law framed in the said case, it is held as under: “Question No.5 is as to whether the appellate authorities should have directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment in view of holding that the notice is invalid. It was further contended by the Revenue that if the notice was held to be invalid, the Assessing Officer should have been directed to 12 pass a fresh order of assessment by complying with the limitation in terms of section 158BC. The contention is unacceptable. The time to be granted in terms of Section 158BC is mandatory. Having failed to comply with the same, granting another opportunity to the Revenue is highly improper. If that were to be so, then each and every violation of law by the Revenue would stand rectified by orders of remand. That is not the intent and purport of the Act. The period as specified in the Act requires to be strictly complied with. Therefore, the plea of the Revenue for a direction to pass fresh orders of assessment after complying with the provisions of section 158BC requires to be rejected. Consequently, question No.5 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 13. As is clear from the aforesaid judgment, in the notice issued under Section 158BC, the time granted to the assessee to file return, was less than 15 days. Therefore it was held that when the statute specifically prescribes 15 days time as the minimum and 45 days as the maximum, if 13 the said requirement of law is not complied with, the notice is defective and it is not curable one under Section 292B of the Act. Similarly it was held that if a notice is defective and the order of assessment is liable to be set aside, the question of directing the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice and make a fresh order of assessment would not arise. 14. In the instant case, 15 days clear notice is given. In fact, the assessee is called upon to file his return in the prescribed form within 15 days. So the requirement of minimum 15 days and maximum 45 days, both are complied with. 15. Reliance is also placed on the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. B.N. KESHAVA, decided on 3rd April, 2008 in ITA No.21/03 C/w ITA 22/03, wherein, dealing with notice under Section 148 of the Act, which was full of blanks, it was held that the material facts which were required to be mentioned in the notice issued to the assessee 14 under Section 148 of the Act, were altogether missing. Obviously, the assessee was required to imagine everything to himself to have acted pursuant to the notice issued to him. In that context, it was held that the notice was invalid and illegal, all subsequent proceedings would automatically fall and no cognizance thereof can be taken. 16. Reliance was also placed on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT Vs. KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA reported in (1971) 82 ITR 821. Dealing with Section 34 of the Old Income Tax Act, 1922, the Apex Court held as under: “It is well settled that the Income-tax Officer’s jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, depends upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction.” 15 17. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of P.N. SASIKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in (1988) 170 ITR 80, where in it was held that issue and service of a notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent or a matter of jurisdiction. In those circumstances, Section 292B of the Act, has no application. The fundamental infirmity cannot be called a technical objection or a mere irregularity and such vital infirmity cannot be cured or obliterated by relying on section 292B of the Income Tax Act. 18. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. HOTEL BLUE MOON reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court dealing with Section 158BC notice itself, has held as under: 16 “Section 158BC stipulates that the Chapter would have application where search has been effected under Section 132 or on requisition of books of account, other documents or assets under Section 132A. By making the notice issued under this section mandatory, it makes such notice the very foundation for jurisdiction. Such notice under the Section is required to be served on the person who is found to be having undisclosed income. The section itself prescribes the time limit of 15 days for compliance. In respect of searches on or after January 1, 1997, the time limit may be given up to 45 days instead of 15 days for compliance. Such notice is prescribed under rule 12(1A) which in turn prescribes Form 2B for block return.” 19. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MANISH MAHESHWARI Vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341(SC), wherein it has been held as under: 17 “Law in this regard is clear and explicit. The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the notice dated February 6, 1996, satisfies the requirements of section 158BD of the Act. The said notice does not record any satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. Documents and other assets recovered during search had not been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the matter. No proceeding under section 158BC had been initiated. There is, thus a patent non- application of mind. A prescribed form had been utilized. Even the status of the assessee had not been specified. It had only been mentioned that the search was conducted in the month of November 1995. No other information had been furnished. The provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. 18 Audited accounts for a period of ten years may have to be reopened” 20. As the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction, which is mandatory, nor had he transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. 21. The learned Counsel for the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of SHIRISH MADHUKAR DALVI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS reported in (2006) 287 ITR 242 (Bom). At paragraph 49, the difference between notice under Section 148 and Section 158BC has been brought out. It reads as under: “Having said so, now it is necessary to consider one more potent legal submission of Mr. Sathe that provisions of ss. 148 and 158BC are synonymous and pari material. Having examined 19 the provisions of ss. 148(1) and 158BC, side by side, it would be clear that s.148(1) opens with words “Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under s.147, the AO shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him…….” This very opening sentence, unequivocally, goes to suggest that in order to assume jurisdiction for assessment under s.147, notice under s. 148(1) is a condition precedent; whereas scheme of Chapter XIV-B of the Act suggests that s.158BA is a section which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where after 30th day of June, 1995 a search is initiated under s.132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under s.132A in the case of any person, then, the AO shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Reading of this provision suggests that this s.158BA is the provision which provides for jurisdiction in favour of the AO to assess undisclosed income in accordance with Chapter XIV-B. Whereas s.158BA(2) is a charging section; s.158BB provides for computation of undisclosed income 20 for the block period; whereas s.158BC provides procedure for block assessment. Sec.158BA bestows jurisdiction on the AO and not s.158BC as submitted by Mr. Sathe. Thus, notice under s.158BC(a) cannot be equated with that of notice under s.148. That notice under s.158BC(a) only provides for procedure to be adopted for block assessment. It does not confer jurisdiction to assess in favour of the AO. In these circumstances, submission made by Mr. Sathe is devoid by any substance.” 22. In none of these judgments, the question whether mentioning of the block period is a requirement of law, is it mandatory and for not mentioning the same, whether the notice under Section 158BC would be invalid and the proceedings initiated would be one without jurisdiction, was gone into. 23. In this background, first let us see the provisions of law to understand the requirement of law in a 21 notice issued under Section 158BC. Section 158BC reads as under: “Procedure for block assessment. 158BC. Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132, in the case of any person, then,— [(a) the Assessing Officer shall— (i) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days; (ii) in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being 22 less than fifteen days but not more than forty-five days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period : Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return;] (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, 23 shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; [(d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B. 24. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Hotel Blue Moon’s case, the issue of a notice under Section 158BC is mandatory before the block assessment proceedings are initiated. The said notice is the very foundation for jurisdiction. Such a notice is to be served on the person who is found to be having undisclosed income. The Section itself prescribes the time limit of 15 days for compliance in respect of searches after 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January 1997. However, it prescribes a time limit of 45 days for searches initiated after 1st day of January, 1997. As the Sections specifically provides the period of notice, non compliance of this provision would vitiate the notice and would render the proceedings initiated one without 24 jurisdiction. After setting out all these legal requirements, all that has been said is, the person to whom the notice is addressed has to file a return in the prescribed form and verified in the same manner a return under clause (i) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period. In the entire Section, there is no mention that the period of block period should be mentioned. The reason is not far to seek. The word ‘block period’ has been defined under Section 158BA, which finds a place in Chapter XIV-B, which deals with procedure for assessment of search cases. Section 158BA reads as under: “Assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search 158BA. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where after the 30th day of June, 1995 a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of any person, then, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to 25 assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (2) The total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall be charged to tax, at the rate specified in section 113, as income of the block period irrespective of the previous year or years to which such income relates and irrespective of the fact whether regular assessment for any one or more of the relevant assessment years is pending or not. Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- (a) the assessment made under this Chapter shall be in addition to the regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the block period; (b) the total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall not include the income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period; (c) the income assessed in this Chapter shall not be included in the regular 26 assessment of any previous year included in the block period. (3) Where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any part of income referred to in sub- section (1) relates to an assessment year for which the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired, and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous years, the said income shall not be included in the block period.” 25. The aforesaid provisions provides for assessment of the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. The assessment made under this chapter is in addition to the regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the Block period. The difference is in the rate of tax payable to the undisclosed income. The 27 rate leviable on this undisclosed income is as specified under Section 113 of the Act. However, the total undisclosed income relating to the Block period shall not include the income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period. Conversely, the income assessed in the block period cannot be included in the regular assessment. What is `block period’ is defined in the Income Tax Act as under: 158B (a) “block period” means the period comprising previous years relevant to six assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted under Section 132 or any requisition was made under Section 132A and also includes the period up to the date of the commencement of such search or date of such requisition in the previous year in which the said search was conducted or requisition was made: Provided that where the search is initiated or the requisition is made before the 1st day of June, 2001, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words “six assessment years”, 28 the words “ten assessment years” had been substituted. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment, then it must be understood. In the sense in which it is defined when the statute prescribes as to what is a block period, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction or power to alter the said period. Therefore consciously the Legislature after using the word ‘block period’, which has a definite connotation and meaning in the context of the Act, did not further elaborate by saying that the notice should mention the period for which the return is to be filed. It is possible that the authorities may mention in the notice, the block period. It is only a practice, which has no statutory basis. Therefore, when the statute expressly provides what is a `Block period’, the question of any doubt or confusion in the mind of the assessee would not arise. 26. In the instant notice, the words ‘block period’ is mentioned. But it is left blank. When that is not the requirement of law, non-mentioning of the block period in 29 the notice would not invalidate the notice nor would vitiate the proceedings as one without jurisdiction. When his premises is searched, he is definite about the date of search. When the notice is issued calling upon him to file return for the block period, as the block period is defined under Act, the period for which the return is to be filed is also known. There is no ambiguity. If there are several searches, most of them not in his premises but in the premises of others, with whom he has transactions, if that is not brought to his notice, he will be completely in dark and he would not be able to file a proper return. In such circumstances, it is open to the assessee to seek for particulars which he wants, to file a proper return. Unless the prejudice is pointed out and a statutory notice validly issued as per the requirement of Section cannot be annulled on hypothetical or on imaginary grounds. 27. In the instant case, after service of notice the assessee promptly engaged a Chartered Accountant, who is fully aware of the meaning of the word ‘block period’. Within 30 the time prescribed he filed NIL returns on 06.03.1988. Therefore the assessee had no doubt in his mind what he is expected to do in law and there was no breach to any extent in non-mentioning of the block period in the notice issued to him. 28. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision and interpretation placed by the Apex Court in Hotel Blue Moon’s case, where the requirement of Section 158BC has been complied with, we are of the view that it is not the requirement of law that in a notice issued under Section 158BC, the period of block period is to be specifically mentioned by the authorities. If it is not mentioned, it would not invalidate the notice. Section 292B to be attracted, the condition precedent is, there should be a defect in the notice. If the notice is not defective at all, the question of validating the said mistake by recourse to Section 292B would not arise. 31 29. Therefore, we answer the substantial question of law, i.e., question No.3, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 30. In view of our findings on this issue, the other two substantial questions of law framed would become purely academic and therefore we decline to answer the said substantial questions of law. 31. However, the order of the appellate authorities shows that they have not gone into the merits of the case at all. As they proceeded to hold that assessment orders are invalid on the basis of the defective notice, they have not considered the case on merits. Therefore in fitness of things, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law without going into the question which we have decided here. Hence, we pass the following 32 ORDER a) The notice issued under Section 158BC is valid. It is not defective. b) The Commissioner of Income-Tax shall decide the case on merits. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ksp/- "