Wrong statutory provision does not invalidate an assessment where jurisdiction otherwise exists and the assessment is timely.

Assessments remained valid because the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to complete them on the basis of the assessees' voluntary returns filed before assessment. Although proceedings were initiated under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that provision was inapplicable where there had been no omission or failure to return income, but the wrong statutory reference did not invalidate the assessments when the power to assess otherwise existed and the assessments were completed within limitation. The legal objection therefore failed, and the assessments were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessments were invalid because the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 notwithstanding the assessee's prior voluntary returns.

Analysis: The assessee had filed voluntary returns before assessment for the relevant years. Proceedings under section 34 were therefore incompetent on the footing that there had been no omission or failure to return income. However, the assessments were in substance founded on the voluntary returns already filed and were completed within the period of limitation. A wrong reference to section 34 did not destroy the authority to assess where jurisdiction otherwise existed on the facts and under the statute. The governing principle is that jurisdiction is not lost merely because the wrong statutory provision is cited, if the power to make the assessment is otherwise available.

Conclusion: The assessments were valid in law and the objection based on section 34 failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the assessments were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment is not invalid merely because the taxing authority cites the wrong provision, if the authority otherwise had jurisdiction and the assessment was made on a legally sustainable basis within time.

---