Rectification order not void for wrong statutory citation where the officer had substantive jurisdiction under the saving provision.

A rectification order relating to an assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was not nullified merely because it was invoked under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under section 297(2)(a), proceedings for a pre-1961 return had to continue as if the 1961 Act had not been passed, so the relevant enquiry was whether the Income-tax Officer had substantive jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under the applicable saving regime. As the rectification powers under section 35 of the 1922 Act and section 154 of the 1961 Act were substantially the same, the order remained valid despite citation of the wrong provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order of rectification passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1957-58 was null and void where the assessment proceedings were governed by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Proceedings in respect of a return filed before the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had to be continued in accordance with section 297(2)(a) of that Act as if the 1961 Act had not been passed. In that setting, a rectification order relating to an assessment made under the 1922 Act could not properly be initiated under section 154 of the 1961 Act. However, the governing question was not the label of the provision invoked, but whether the Income-tax Officer possessed the substantive jurisdiction to make the rectification order. The rectification powers under section 35 of the 1922 Act and section 154 of the 1961 Act were substantially the same, and the officer could have passed the same order under the 1922 Act. Mere reference to the wrong statutory provision did not render the order a nullity.

Conclusion: The order was not null and void; the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is not void merely because it cites the wrong rectification provision, if the authority otherwise had jurisdiction to make the order under the applicable saving regime and the substantive power was the same under the predecessor statute.

---