Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. This is a reference under Sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that action under Sec.147(a) had been validly initiated for the assessment year 1953-54 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that notice under Sec.148 has been duly served on the assessee proposed to be reassessed, having regard to the provisions of Sec.283(1) of the Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment had not been vitiated by the issue of demand notice in the name of the karta of the erstwhile Hinu undivided family ? " 2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee, Manilal Raghavji Kothari, was assessed in the capacity of the karta of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1953-54 on a total income of Rs. 24,343. It may be stated that the accounts of the assessee-firm were maintained from Diwali to Diwali. In November 1953, there was a partial partition in the Hindu undivided family consisting of Manilal Raghavji Kothari and his two sons, Shashikant Kothari and Kantilal Kothari. The family business was partitioned in equal shares among three of them. The assessments in subsequent years were done in the status of an individual. On December 16, 1966, the premises of Manilal Raghavji Kothari were raided by the officers of the Income-tax Department. The documents seized during the raid showed that the assessee was maintaining duplicate set of account books. According to the seized books, the opening balance for the assessment year 1954-55 was Rs. 4,51,648. The original return had shown the opening balance as only Rs. 3,48,841 and the same was the closing balance for the assessment year 1953-54. There was thus an apparent discrepancy of Rs. 1,02,807. The Income-tax Officer proceeding on the basis of the opening balance of 1954-55, as revealed by the seized books, formed the opinion that there was an apparent discrepancy on the footing that the closing balance of 1953-54 should be the same as the opening balance of 1954-55. There was thus an apparent discrepancy of Rs. 1,02,807. The Income-tax Officer proceeding on the basis of the opening balance of 1954-55, as revealed by the seized books, formed the opinion that there was an apparent discrepancy on the footing that the closing balance of 1953-54 should be the same as the opening balance of 1954-55. The assessment for the year 1953-54 was reopened under Sec.147(a) of the Income-tax Act after obtaining the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice was issued to the assessee on January 4, 1969, under Sec.148 of the Income-tax Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed a return dated January 31, 1969. In this return, no figure of income was mentioned and only a remark "as per original return " was made, The assessee contended that upon the showing of the Department itself, the discrepancy has been revealed in the accounts for the year 1954-55 and, therefore, the proceeding under Sec.147 of the Income-tax Act for the year 1953-54 was illegal and without jurisdiction. He endeavoured to explain the discrepancy by contending that Rs, 93,090 was intangible additions which had accrued to him between the assessment years 1945-46 and 1952-53. Further, a sum of Rs. 10,681 represented the agricultural income during the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-51 The assessee thus attempted to explain the discrepancy of Rs. 1,02,807 by intangible additions and agricultural income. 3. The, Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee--in the assessment proceeding---to produce the books for the later years also. This was evaded by the assessee by writing that those books were not in his possession and must have been seized by the Department in the course of the raid. The claims of intangible additions and income from agricultural operations were all rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, agreeing with the Income-tax Officer, upheld the order for reopening the proceeding under Sec.147(a). He also held that action had to be taken in respect of the assessment year 1953-54 and not for 1954-55. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, accepted the assessees claim of Rs. 78,900 as the amount available out of intangible additions and sustained an addition of Rs. 23,907. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the claim of income from agricultural operations as well. The assessee as well as the Department both filed appeals to the Tribunal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, accepted the assessees claim of Rs. 78,900 as the amount available out of intangible additions and sustained an addition of Rs. 23,907. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the claim of income from agricultural operations as well. The assessee as well as the Department both filed appeals to the Tribunal. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment proceedings as also the maintenance of addition of Rs. 23,907. The Department, on the other hand, challenged the reduction in the sum accepted, as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal held : (i) That the assessee was maintaining duplicate books of account and that there was discrepancy between them. According to it, income of 1953-54 assessment year had escaped assessment and not of 1954-55 ; (ii) that notice of the proceeding under Sec.147(a) was validly served. The notice to Manilal Raghavji Kothari, the karta of the erst while joint family, fulfilled the requirements of Sec.148 of the Income- tax Act; and (iii) that the demand notice served upon Manilal Raghavji Kothari, the karta of the Hindu undivided family, did not vitiate the assessment proceedings. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee did not challenge the correctness of the figures appearing in the capital account in the seized hooks. In regard to the figures to be added in the assessment of the assessee, the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to Rs. 78,900 being the sum to be added was challenged. The assessee could not produce any evidence before the Tribunal as well in regard to the existence of agricultural income. In regard to intangible additions, the Tribunal held that the assessee could be given the benefit of intangible additions made in assessment orders for only four preceding years. The claim for intangible additions for the period 1945-46 to 1948-49 was thus not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal thus reduced the relief granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by Rs. 20,000 and held that the assessees explanation regarding the sources of the capital account was explained to the extent of Rs. 58,900. The appeals by the assessee and the Department were thus disposed of. The Department accepted the verdict as such and did not make any prayer for reference to this court. The assessee, however, took steps for reference of the case to this court. 58,900. The appeals by the assessee and the Department were thus disposed of. The Department accepted the verdict as such and did not make any prayer for reference to this court. The assessee, however, took steps for reference of the case to this court. That is how the present reference is before us. 5. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the assesses, submitted as follows : (i) Initiation of proceedings under Sec.147(a) of the Income-tax Act should have been taken for the assessment year 1954-55 and not for 1953-54; (ii) The notice under Sec.148 of the Income-tax Act to Manilal Raghavji Kothari alone without describing him as the karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family did not fulfil the requirements of the section and, therefore, the entire assessment proceeding was without jurisdiction and void; and (iii) the demand notice having been served on the erstwhile karta alone, the entire assessment was vitiated. 6. I shall now test the validity of the contentions noted above. In regard to the first submission, learned counsel for the assessee stated that the discrepancy had been found in the accounts for the year 1954-55 and not in the year 1953-54, The reassessment proceeding was, therefore, illegal. I regret, there is no substance in this submission. The Revenue was perfectly justified in holding that the discrepancy had been found in the accounts for the year 1953-54. The discrepancy was found in the return filed for the year 1953-54. That was detected with reference to the documents found (duplicate account books) for the succeeding years. The returns for 1953-54 were tested on the touchstone of the figures discovered in respect of the succeeding year from the books seized in the course of the raid by the Income-tax Department. It was found that the opening balance shown for the succeeding Diwali was Rs. 4,51,648. The assessing officer took the figure of Rs. 4,51,648 as the correct figure in regard to the opening balance of Diwali year commencing from 1953; Thus, there was an obvious discrepancy between the closing balance of the year ending Diwali 1952 and the year commencing Diwali 1953. The submission urged on behalf of the assessee is, therefore, clearly untenable. The concealment, therefore, was in the account of 1953-54 (A.Y.). 7. The submission on behalf of the assessee is untenable for yet another reason. The submission urged on behalf of the assessee is, therefore, clearly untenable. The concealment, therefore, was in the account of 1953-54 (A.Y.). 7. The submission on behalf of the assessee is untenable for yet another reason. From the documents seized, it was apparent that the assessee was maintaining duplicate set of accounts. The seized accounts showed discrepancy between the returned figures and the figures shown in the seized books. Conceding for the time being that the wrong or false figures occurred in the account for the year commencing Diwali 1952, yet it will fall within the assessment year 1953-54. That must be so because the wrong or false figures were found in the accounts of 1953-54, accounting year commencing from October 18, 1952. That was Diwali day, when the assessee opened his books of account. The law on the subject is succinctly put in Kanga and Palkhivalas The Law and Practice Income Tax, Seventh Edition, Volume I, at page 610. Instead of referring to the various authorities, it would be sufficient to quote from it itself, which is as follows : "Under the 1922 Act, it was held that if the undisclosed income, e.g., cash credits or high denomination notes encashed, was found to represent secreted profits from the assessees regular business, the previous year chosen by the assessee as the previous year of the business had ordinarily to be taken as the previous year for such income. On the other hand, if the undisclosed income was found to be from some unknown source other than the regular business of the assessee, the financial year had to be taken as the previous year for such income. This section enacts that if a sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year (which may be different from the financial year), the cash credit may, in cases where it is assessed as undisclosed income, be treated as the income of that previous year, and the financial year may not be taken as the previous year for such a cash credit even if the undisclosed income is not found to be from the assessees regular business for which the books are maintained." 8. The above is the settled law of the land. In my view, therefore, on all counts it was account of 1953-54 which had to be reassessed and not . 1954-55. The above is the settled law of the land. In my view, therefore, on all counts it was account of 1953-54 which had to be reassessed and not . 1954-55. The Appellate Tribunal was absolutely correct in the view that it took of the matter. The submission urged by Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, on behalf of the assessee, is thus untenable and is hereby rejected. 9. The next objection of the assessee was in regard to the validity of the assessment. It was contended that notice under Sec.148 having been given only to Manilal Raghavji Kothari without describing him as the karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family, the reassessment proceeding was invalid. In my view, there is no substance in this submission as well. It is not in controversy that during the assessment year 1953-54, Manilal Raghavji Kothari was not the karta of the joint family comprising of himself and his two sons. On the request of the counsel for the assessee, a supplementary statement of account was called for from the Tribunal as also the notice issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The notice is in the following terms : " Whereas I have reason to believe that the income of Hindu undivided family in respect of which you are assessable/charge able to tax of the assessment year 1953-54 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. I, therefore, propose to reassess the income for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice return in the prescribed form of...... for the income of Hindu undivided family... in respect of which year are assessable.......... " 11. The notice clearly shows that the assessee had been called upon to file a return in the prescribed form for the income of the Hindu undivided family. The original proceeding was against the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was the karta. The notice thus issued to him on January 4, 1969, clearly indicated that fresh return had to be filed for the Hindu undivided family. The fact that Manilal Raghavji Kothari was not mentioned as the karta in the notice is of no moment. He was the karta and he had been called upon to file a return of the Hindu undivided Family. The fact that Manilal Raghavji Kothari was not mentioned as the karta in the notice is of no moment. He was the karta and he had been called upon to file a return of the Hindu undivided Family. That was sufficient compliance of Sec.148 of the Income-tax Act. In my view, therefore there is no substance in this submission as well. 12. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad for the assessee relied upon Madan Lal Agrawal V/s. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 745, where the Allahabad High Court held that where the notice issued to an assessee is vague, it cannot be relied upon to sustain an assessment under Sec.147. The facts of that case fully justified the observation and the decision of the Allahabad High Court. In that case, the assessee had been asked to file revised return, as the Income-tax Officer had reasons to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. On receipt of the notice, the assessee filed a return as individual. Thereafter, the Income-tax. Officer informed the assesses that the notice was issued to the assessee in the status of an Hindu undivided family and hence the assessee should file return in the status of a Hindu undivided family instead of as an individual. Reassessment having been done by the Income-tax Officer as Hindu undivided family, the matter went up in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment and remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer for fresh assessment. When the matter went up before the Tribunal, on an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the reassessment proceeding, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a reference, the High Court observed that the notice not having been addressed to the assessee which was an entity different from the assessee (individual), the notice to the assessee was vague and as such invalid. The vagueness could not be cured by the Income-tax Officer at a later stage by informing the assessee that he was required to file his return in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Allahabad case thus proceeded on the footing that the assessee was never informed by the notice that he was required to submit fresh return for the Hindu undivided family. The position in the present case is entirely different. The Allahabad case thus proceeded on the footing that the assessee was never informed by the notice that he was required to submit fresh return for the Hindu undivided family. The position in the present case is entirely different. The assessee had, been called upon in clear terms to file the return in the status of Hindu undivided family. It is patent that the assessee having been called upon to file return in the status of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was the karta, there was no vagueness in the matter. He was not misled in any manner. The assessment under Sec.147 of the Income-tax Act, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground urged by Mr. Rameshwar Prasad. 13. The last submission on behalf of the assessee related to the assessment being void on account of the demand notice having been sent only to one member of the Hindu undivided family. I regret, I have some difficulty in acceding to the submission urged by Mr. Rameshwar Prasad for the assessee. The demand notice is a process of recovery of tax after assessment proceeding has been completed. I fail to appreciate, therefore, how a defective demand notice can vitiate the assessment proceeding, The assessment cannot be affected by the demand notice. If there is any defect in the demand notice, that can be rectified by the revenue authorities. Learned counsel for the assessee was candid in conceding that there was no authority to the effect that a defect in a demand notice would vitiate the assessment proceeding. 14. Sec.283(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that after a finding of total partition has been recorded by the Income-tax Officer in respect of any Hindu undivided family, notices under this Act in respect of the income of the Hindu undivided family must be served cm the person who was the last manager of the Hindu undivided family. It should be served on all adult members of the Hindu undivided family, immediately before the partition, only if the last manager was dead. In the instant case, there is no controversy about the fact that there was only a partial partition in the Hindu undivided family. It is not a case of total partition. It should be served on all adult members of the Hindu undivided family, immediately before the partition, only if the last manager was dead. In the instant case, there is no controversy about the fact that there was only a partial partition in the Hindu undivided family. It is not a case of total partition. Even if there had been a total partition, issuance of demand notice to the assessee alone would be valid notice and no objection could be raised on that score. The position in the instant case is much worse for the assessee, as there has been only a partial partition and not a total partition. The position in the case of partial partition cannot be worse than that in the total partition. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Sec.283(1) would not come into play in the instant case, as the assessment had been done for the period covered by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The submission is fallacious. The assessment was done after 1961 (in 1969). Sec.297(2)(j) of the 1961 Act lays down that any sum payable by way of income-tax, super-tax, interest, penalty or otherwise under the repealed Act may be recovered under this Act, The assessee, therefore, cannot escape the rigour of Sec.283(3) of the 1961 Act. 15. Assuming, though not conceding, that the 1961 Act would not apply, what would be the situation under the 1922 Act. The relevant provisions in this regard are sections 25A and 29 of the said Act. These provided for assessment after partition of a Hindu undivided family. Sub-section (1) of Sec.25A provides for the Revenue to enquire if there has been partition in the family before proceeding to assess. The relevant provisions in this regard are sections 25A and 29 of the said Act. These provided for assessment after partition of a Hindu undivided family. Sub-section (1) of Sec.25A provides for the Revenue to enquire if there has been partition in the family before proceeding to assess. Sub-section (2) of Sec.25A provides that where an order has been passed that there has been a partition in the Hindu undivided family, the Income-tax Officer shall make an assessment of the total income received by or on behalf of the joint family as such, as if no partition had taken place, and each member or group of members shall, in addition to any income-tax for which he or it may be separately liable (i.e., as an individual) and notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) of Sec.14, be liable for a share of the tax on the income so assessed according to the portion of the joint family property allotted to him or it and the Income-tax Officer shall make assessments accordingly on the various members and groups of members in accordance with the provisions of Sec.23. The proviso to Sub-section (2) is rather important which runs thus : " Provided that all the members and groups of members whose joint family properties bad been partitioned shall be liable jointly and severally for the tax assessed on the total income received by or on behalf of the joint family as such. " 16. Thus, even if there had been a total partition during the assessment year 1954-55, all members of the Hindu undivided family would be jointly and severally liable for the recovery of the tax assessed on account of assessment year 1953-54. By that process of reasoning, all the coparceners of the assessee being jointly and severally liable, it was open to the Department to proceed against him alone. There is thus no defect in the demand notice. 17. Sec.29 provides for notice of demand. It enjoins that when any sum is due in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Income-tax Officer shall serve upon the assessee or other persons liable to pay such tax a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. 17. Sec.29 provides for notice of demand. It enjoins that when any sum is due in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Income-tax Officer shall serve upon the assessee or other persons liable to pay such tax a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. Thus, even under the 1922 Act, tax having become due from the assessee in consequence of an assessment order passed under the 1922 Act, the Income-tax Officer was required to serve a notice of demand upon the assessee or other person liable to such tax. Thus, it admits of no doubt that the demand notice could be served on the assessee alone or on any of the members of the erstwhile joint family. It is now well settled that whereas Sec.25A of the 1922 Act applied only to cases where there was a total partition of the joint family, Sec.171 of the 1961 Act applies to cases of both--total partition and partial partition, i.e., partial either in regard to the persons constituting the joint family or as regards assets belonging to the joint family or both. Sec.171 of the new Act provides that the total income of the joint family in respect of the period up to the date of partition should be assessed as if no partition had taken place and the members should be held jointly and severally liable for the tax assessed on the family. Thus, it is obvious that the validity of the demand notice cannot be assailed either on the footing of the 1922 Act or of the 1961 Act. The demand notice was valid under either of the statutes. In my view, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the demand notice was invalid nor am I prepared to hold that the so-called invalidity of the demand notice vitiated the assessment. 18. For the reasons stated above, the answer to each of the questions referred by the Tribunal to this court must be in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly with costs of Rs. 250 payable by the assessee to the Department. Nazir Ahmad, J. 19 I agree.