This is appeal of Revenue. grounds of appeal are taken as under: That Id. AAC has erred in law and on facts in holding proceedings to be invalid. That Id. AAC failed to appreciate that no proceedings would be invalid merely on account of mistake in notice (refer s. 292B). That Id. AAC failed to appreciate that notice issued in name of branch is correct in view of s. 292B. Moreso when it was clearly intimated to assessee through notice dated 15th Feb., 1983 that notice was meant for M/s Gopi Krishna & Co. (Head Office). That Id. AAC has erred in law in holding that 703.500 gms. gold ornaments seized by Gold Contral Authorities on 25th April, 1970 were duly accounted for in books of account. That Id. AAC failed to appreciate that on this very ground Gold Control authorities have imposed fine of Rs. 8,000 and personal penalty of Rs. 6,000 in respect of this very transaction, and order of Gold control authorities have become final. That order of Id. AAC is erroneous in law and on facts of case and it deserves to be set aside and order of ITO deserves to be restored. first main contention is that AAC erred in holding that proceedings under s. 148 taken were invalid on ground that notice issued was not valid. reason given by AAC in this contention is that name of assessee mentioned on notice was wrong. name was mentioned as Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, Urdu Bazat, Gorakhpur. It is stated that correct name was Gopi Krishna & Co. And that Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was actually its branch. AAC has held notice issued under s. 148 to be invalid on this account. Departmental Representative argued that notice was issued in name of assessee and not in any other name. assessee had two names Gopi Krishna & Co. And also Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna. notice was issued i n name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna which was also name of assessee though according to assessee it was name of its branch. In partnership deed of assessee it is mentioned on page 2 of partnership are under: "And whereas aforesaid First, Second and Third parties agreed amongst themselves to carry on business in Gold ornaments and Silver Bullion w.e.f. Dashehra St. 2026 under name and style of M/s Gopi Krishna & Company Hindi Bazat, Gorakpur, and M/s Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, Hindi Bazar, Gorakhpur (for gold ornament business) on various terms and conditions which are necessary to be reduced into writing so that there may not arise any dispute in future". Thus partnership deed itself takes two names of as mentioned above. It is also stated in partnership deed (as mentioned above) that name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was for gold ornament business. It was argued that though notice more conveniently could have been issued in name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, and Company but simply because notice was issued in name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, notice was not bad as it was issued in name of assessee itself and admittedly Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was name of branch of assessee. It was argued that there was no invalidity in notice issued nor any confusion or vagueness as alleged. There was no dispute vis-a-vis status of assessee. case laws relied upon on behalf of assessee are not relevant as in those cases name and status mentioned was vague or wrong. Here there was nothing of this type. Reliance was also placed in this connection by Departmental Representative on provisions of s. 292B of Act. Id. Representative of assessee argued that AAC was fully justified in holding notice to be invalid and illegal. correct name of assessee was Gopi Krishna and Company and not Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna. As notice itself was issued in wrong name notice was issued bad and invalid from very inception and its invalidity could not be cured by later action. Reliance was placed on following case laws: Madam Lal Agrawal vs. CIT, Allahabad (1983) 144 ITR 745 (All) CIT vs. Chandi Prasad Modi (1979) 119 ITR 340 (Cal) CIT vs. B. Ranga Reddi (1979) 10 CTR (AP) 13: (1979) 118 ITR 897 (AP) decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Vibhuti Bhushan Malik (I. T. Ref. No. 1983 of 1976 order dated 27th Jan., 1986). Decision of Tribunal Allahabad in case of Ram Das Deoki Nandan dt. 30th April, 1983 in ITA No. 1032 (Alld)/1980. It was argued that according to ratio laid down in above decisions notice issued in wrong name was invalid and invalidity could not be cured by any later action and provisions of s. 292B were also of no help to Department in this connection. We have carefully looked into facts of case and rival viewpoints. In decision reported in (1983) 144 ITR 745 (All) (supra) it was held by Allahabad High Court that issue of valid notice within specified period was condition precedent for validity of any re-assessment. It was also held in this case that notice issued was vague and notice was not valid. In this case notice was not clear with regard to status as to whether notice was issued to individual or to HUF. High Court, therefore, held that notice was vague and hence invalid. In case reported at (1979) 119 ITR 340 (Cal) (supra) facts were that there were two concerns of same name and at same address at relevant time. ITO had full knowledge of it but inspite of this in notice issued there was nothing to show whether notice was issued to partnership firm or to HUF whose names were same. Under these circumstances it was held that notice was vague and invalid. In case reported at (1979) 118 ITR 897 (AP) (supra) notice did not show that it was issued to HUF though Department wanted to assess HUF. Tribunal agreed with AAC that notice was invalid as in notice no reference was made to HUF. Petitions under 256(1) as also 256(2) were rejected. In case of Vibhuti Bhushan Malik decided by Calculate High Court (supra) notice should have been issued in name of 'B.M.' which was name of assessee. notice was actually issued in name of 'P.M. and B.B.M'. It was held by High Court notice was issued in wrong name and hence invalid. In case before Tribunal Allahabad of Ram Das Deoki Nandan Department wanted to assessee HUF but notice was issued to individual. Tribunal held that notice was invalid in these circumstances. In case under consideration before us there is no dispute with regard to status of status to whom notice was issued. name mentioned in notice was even admittedly of assessee's branch and not of anybody else. partnership deed of assessee shows that name in which notice was issued, was also name of assessee (as mentioned above.) assessee was doing gold ornament business in this name. Probably gold licence of assessee was in this name. It may be true that name of Head Office was Gopi Krishna and Company and notice more appropriately should have been issued in name of Gopi Krishna and Company but mention of name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna did not create any confusion. This name did not refer to any other assessee. There was no confusion with regard to status nor any controversy as to whether notice was issued to individual or to HUF. In other words, notice, in our opinion was not vague. name of branch of assessee was as good name of assessee as other name which was name given to Head Office. Even in this name of assessee has been allowed benefit of registration vide order of AAC dt 11th June, 1984 though claim of registration/renewal was filed in name of Gopi Krishna and Company. Moreover, clear provisions of s. 292B also come to rescue of Revenue. In substance and in effect notice was in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of Act. Taking totality of facts into account and reasons mentioned above, we are of opinion that notice was neither vague nor invalid. order of AAC on this issue is reversed and proceeding under s. 148 is hereby held to be valid. only other contention in this appeal is that AAC was not correct in holding that 703.500 gms. Gold ornaments seized by Gold Control Authorities on 24th April, 1970 were duly accounted for in books of accounts. It is argued by departmental representative that ITO has mentioned clearly in assessment order that assessee could not produce stock register in form GS-11 and 12 before him to prove his contention that ornaments were duly entered in stock register. It was argued that Gold Control Administrator held that these ornaments were unexplained and on that account penalty was confirmed by Gold Control Administrator at Rs. 8,000 plus Rs. 6,000. Id. Representative of assessee argued that books in form nos. 11 and 12 of Gold Control Act were in possession of Central Excise Department in relevant time and hence it was impossible for assessee to have produced same before ITO If necessary ITO could have called for registers from Central Excise Department and examined them to find out whether contention of assessee was correct or not. We have looked into facts and rival arguments. In our opinion, AAC accepted plea of assessee without giving any opportunity to ITO to examine same vis-a-vis registers maintained in form nos. 11 and 12. order of AAC on this issue, therefore, cannot be upheld. orders of authorities below on this issue are set aside and issue is restored to file of ITO for being decided afresh after examining registers maintained by assessee in form nos. 11 and 12 of Gold Control Act. If these registers are still with Central Excise Department, ITO may make necessary arrangements to examine said registers by getting registers from Central Excise Department officially. assessee should also be given opportunity of hearing in this connection. In result, appeal of Department would be deemed to have been allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. HARI PRASAD GOPI KRISHNA