INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 144 Section 143(3)

Assessment - Best judgment assessment - Legality where wrong provision mentioned by AO -

Appeal of Revenue was against the action of the CIT(A) in holding that assessment made under section 144/143(3) as illegal. CIT(A) had allowed ground raised by assessee wherein he had held that the AO passing the order under section 144/143(3) was not appropriate and since the assessee had complied with the notices and filed written submission as well as personally appeared before the CIT(A) on different dates/occasions, the only section that the AO could have passed the assessment order was under section 143(3) and not under section 144. Departmental Representative argued that even if there was a typographical mistake wherein the AO had shown to have passed the order under section 144/143(3) the typographical error was curable under section 292B.Held: It is well-settled principle of law that mention or application of a wrong provision of law to a given facts of case itself does not make an authority incompetent to deal with the factual situation unless there is no provision which can take care of the jurisdictional fact or the jurisdiction of the authority itself. Here, in this case, the AO is vested with power to assess assessee's income and mere mention of wrong provisions will not render the assessment order invalid. Ground of appeal of the revenue was therefore, allowed.

Relied:L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 12 (SC) : 1961 TaxPub(DT) 117 (SC).