Wrong citation in tax notice and valuation reference under section 142A do not invalidate proceedings or require prior book rejection.

A wrong citation in an income-tax notice does not invalidate the proceeding where the action is otherwise authorised by law, because section 292B cures defects, mistakes and omissions. Section 142A permits reference to a valuation officer for assessment or reassessment purposes without any mandatory prior formal rejection of the books of account, though the assessing officer must have a basis to question the valuation offered by the assessee. A writ challenge to such an initial valuation step is premature when no final reassessment decision has yet been made and statutory remedies remain available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice or communication referring to the wrong provision of law was invalid and liable to be set aside. (ii) Whether a reference to the valuation officer under section 142A could be made without first rejecting the books of account. (iii) Whether the writ petition was premature when no final decision on reassessment had yet been taken.

Issue (i): Whether a notice or communication referring to the wrong provision of law was invalid and liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 saves an assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding from invalidity merely because of a mistake, defect or omission, so long as it is otherwise valid under the Act. A wrong mention of the provision does not vitiate an otherwise lawful proceeding.

Conclusion: The notice was not invalid merely because section 50C was mentioned initially and it was later clarified as a notice under section 142A.

Issue (ii): Whether a reference to the valuation officer under section 142A could be made without first rejecting the books of account.

Analysis: Section 142A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 authorises the assessing officer to obtain a valuation report for the purposes of assessment or reassessment. The provision, as applied, does not require prior formal rejection of the books of account as a condition precedent. The court accepted the view that the assessing officer had power to enquire into the valuation of the investment and also noted that the assessment record showed non-acceptance of the valuation furnished by the assessee.

Conclusion: Prior rejection of the books of account was not a mandatory precondition for invoking section 142A.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was premature when no final decision on reassessment had yet been taken.

Analysis: The impugned action was only an initial step in the process of valuation and possible reassessment. No final adjudication on valuation or reassessment had been made, and the assessee retained the statutory remedies if an adverse order were eventually passed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notices and communication failed, and the proceeding was dismissed at the admission stage with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere wrong citation of a provision does not invalidate an otherwise lawful notice, and section 142A empowers the assessing officer to seek valuation of investments without first obtaining a formal rejection of the books of account.

---