H.S. AHULUWALIA, J.M. These two appeals have been filed against common order of AAC and are therefore, disposed off by single order: Notices under s. 148 were issued to assessee on ground that assessee had not filed returns of his income. In response thereto, assessee again failed to file any return and consequently ITO issued notices under s. 142(2) which were served upon some representative of assessee. In response thereto assessee's counsel filed written reply objecting to issue of notices. ITO discussed matter with assessee's representative and informed him that income in question was liable to be taxed in assessee's individual hands regarding which assessee was pleading that they should be taxed in hands of HUF of which assessee was only Karta. ITO, however sought to rely upon order of Tribunal in WTA Nos. 16 & 17/JP/76-77 for years 1973-74 and 1974-75 for proposition that income of assessee was to be assessed in his hands as individual. Ultimately ITO proceeded on to make ex parte assessments at Rs. 13,080 and Rs. 14,593 respectively. Both these assessments have been confirmed by AAC. assessee has consequently come up in second appeal before us. We have heard representatives of parties at length in these appeals. first and foremost point argued on behalf of assessee was that notices issued in this case were absolutely wrong and invalid in law. Shri Ghotudas had actually died on 20th May, 1976 and notices issued to him purporting to tax him in his individual capacity are addressed to M/s Gohotudas Banwarilal. According to him, even word 'individual' was not mentioned in original notices and it had been added by Department later in its office copies. These notices were never received by any representatives of assessee. They purported to have been served upon Shri Prashadi Ram who h d absolutely no authority to receive said notices on behalf of deceased. In fact, ITO, Jhunjunu had issued notices under s. 139 (2) to Shri Ghotulal Banwarilal of Jhunjunu in response to which returns had been filed by said person in his capacity as Karta of HUF declaring incomes at Rs. 11,838 and Rs.13,190 on which assessments had been made by ITO. Thus same amount had been sought to be and were actually doubly assessed by ITO since assessments on HUF were never cancelled. Even otherwise Tribunal had never held assessee to be individual as ITO had wrongly pointed out and, therefore, basis of assessment of income in question in hands of assessee as individual was absolutely incorrect. Further ITO had wrongly observed that no objection had been raised to assessment of assessee in status of individual. entire material were bad in law. Incidentally on merits also it was contended that while making assessments collection charges at 6 per cent of rent recovered and land and building tax and other expenses had not been allowed. Further interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 had been wrongly charged. On behalf of Department, orders of authorities below were supported and various points raised on behalf of assessee were contradicted. Particularly reliance was placed on s. 292B of ITA, 1961 according to which any defect in issue of notices did not invalidate same. After carefully considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that notices issued were certainly defective. notice issued to M/s Ghotudas Banwarilal can hardly be said to be issued to individual. However, authorities on basis of which these notices were held to be invalid and service thereof was held to be defective, namely, Jayanthi Talkies Distributors vs. CIT 1978 CTR (Mad) 303: (1979) 120 ITR 579 (Mad), Addl. CIT vs. Prem Kumar (1980) 124 ITR 381 (All), Fatehch and Aggarwal vs. CWT (1974) 97 ITR 701 (Ori), CIT vs. Girdharilal (1984) 38 CTR (Raj) 348: (1984) 147 ITR 379 (Raj), Sheikh Abdul Kadar vs. ITO, Sugar (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP), Y. Narayanchetty & Another vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. Saraswatibai & Ors. (1981) 23 CTR (P&H) 130: (1982) 137 ITR 656 (P&H), Rama Devi Aggarwal & Ors. vs. CIT (WB) (1979) 117 ITR 256 (Cal), R.L. Narang vs. CIT, New Delhi (1982) 136 ITR 108 (Del) and ITO vs. Suraj Prakash (1984) 18 TTJ (Jp) 98: (1984) 7 ITD 832 (Jp), all related to period before insertion of s. 292B of ITA, according to which no return of income, assessment, notice summons or other proceeding furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of this Act. Since in response to notices ultimately Shri B.P. Khejriwal, Advocate, who was assessee's counsel, had attended proceedings before ITO on 4th Feb., 1982 and put forward written reply which was discussed between ITO and assessee's representative defect in notices has not affected merits of assessee's case. Therefore, all defects in these notices should be deemed to have been cured by above mentioned provision of law. However, so far as present appeals are concerned, they are liable to succeed on merits. notices do not appear to have been issued to fulfil requirements and purpose of IT Act. perusal of various documents filed by assessee, copies of which are part of paper book, would show that income in question had already been assessed in hands of assessee as n HUF. Therefore, there was no question of assessing assessee again in his individual capacity. order of Tribunal, according to which ITO has proceeded on to make present assessments does not hold that status of assessee was different from HUF. It only states that AAC should not have gone into questions of status without issuing fresh notice as required by law. Incidentally, they have observed that AAC had wrongly directed WTO to take status of assessee as HUF. WTO or AAC could do so provided assessee was given notice before changing status to one, other than mentioned in records. Therefore, orders of authorities below were set aside. What we mean to say is that Tribunal never decided status of assessee was only individual. They had only restored matter back to WTO to re determine status which AAC h d held to be that of HUF. This can never mean that status was determined to be that of Individual. Now entire assessment in present case has proceeded on assumption that Tribunal had already decided status of assessee to be that of individual. This assumption being basically incorrect and there being no other evidence regarding status of assessee, in relation to present incomes which had already been assessed in hands of assessee as HUF, ITO was not justified in law in again assessing same income in assessee's hands in his capacity as individual. What we mean to say is that this is case of double assessment and defect in notices issued by ITO has resulted in complete failure of justice because all through assessee's contention has been that incomes i n question had already been assessed in assessee's hands as HUF and, therefore, fresh assessments in his individual capacity were not justified. This plea has never been properly adjudicated upon by ITO has proceeded on to decide this matter against assessee on wrong interpretation of order of Tribunal. Thus real issue was never thrashed into and all this happened because ITO had been careless in issuing notices to assessee or his representative what we mean to say is that while defect in issue and service of notices was curable in circumstances of present case, fresh assessments themselves have resulted in failure of justice and, therefore, they cannot be upheld. This is apart from fact that notices issued in present cases were rather defective. Now if we exclude incomes which had been assessed in hands of assessee as HUF, remaining incomes which were sought to be added by ITO in his individual hands are nominal incomes of Rs. 1000 and odd each, Therefore, no tax liability would arise on assessment of those incomes. Accordingly, we quash present assessments as being invalid in law. In view of said finding that assessments in questions are abinitio bad in merits we need not express any opinion in alternative contention of assessee that some additions are liable to be reduced. In result both appeals are allowed and assessments in question are quashed. *** BANWARILAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER