Assessment validity and unexplained jewellery addition: wrong section reference did not vitiate jurisdiction, but section 69B addition failed.

A wrong mention of section 153A/143(3) instead of section 143(3) does not by itself invalidate an assessment where the Assessing Officer otherwise has jurisdiction and the assessee has participated in proceedings under sections 143(2) and 142(1); the noted restraint order also supported the existence of search authorisation. An addition for unexplained investment in jewellery under section 69B requires a proper statutory foundation of excess investment over recorded books or other reliable material, and that basis was absent where the jewellery was not specifically linked to the assessee and her explanation was supported by affidavit. Relief was thus confined to the jewellery addition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment was invalid for being described as made under section 153A/143(3) instead of section 143(3), and for alleged absence of a search warrant in the assessee's name; (ii) Whether the addition of Rs. 13,95,900 on account of 450 grams of gold jewellery as unexplained investment under section 69B was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment was invalid for being described as made under section 153A/143(3) instead of section 143(3), and for alleged absence of a search warrant in the assessee's name.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee participated in the proceedings. The presence of a wrong statutory reference by itself did not vitiate the order where the Assessing Officer otherwise had jurisdiction to make the assessment. The record also showed a restraint order regarding bank lockers, which supported the conclusion that search authorization had been issued.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the assessment failed and was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 13,95,900 on account of 450 grams of gold jewellery as unexplained investment under section 69B was sustainable.

Analysis: The jewellery found during search was not specifically linked to the assessee, and her explanation that 950 grams of jewellery had been received at marriage was supported by an affidavit. The explanation ought to have been verified, and the absence of wealth-tax returns did not justify an adverse inference where the net wealth remained below the exemption limit. Independently, section 69B applies where an excess investment over recorded books is found, but no books of account were maintained and the entire value of the jewellery was added, making invocation of the provision unsustainable on the facts.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69B was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the addition relating to jewellery, while the challenge to the assessment's validity did not succeed; the matter was therefore disposed of by granting relief only on the substantive addition.

Ratio Decidendi: A wrong mention of a statutory provision does not invalidate an assessment if the Assessing Officer otherwise had jurisdiction, and an addition under section 69B cannot stand absent the statutory foundation of excess investment over recorded books or other reliable basis for treating the investment as unexplained.

---