Section 124 of the Income Tax Act

Section 292B of the Income-tax Act applies only to technical defects and omissions, not to fundamental errors that vitiate the assessment itself. A reassessment notice, such as one issued under Section 148, if addressed to an incorrect person or in the wrong name, is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the entire assessment and cannot be cured by Section 292B.

The exercise of a power must be referable to a jurisdiction that validates it, not one that would render it nugatory. Provisions concerning the machinery for assessment must be interpreted to make the tax charge effective.

An assessee has no fundamental right to be assessed by a particular Assessing Officer or at a specific place. Orders transferring a case are administrative, for better revenue administration, and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear prejudice is proven, with inconvenience not being a valid ground.

An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.

The principle of judicial discipline requires consistency in following prior judicial pronouncements. This case is cited as authority for adhering to established legal principles.

An error in mentioning the specific sub-section of a law, or referencing a wrong section, does not invalidate an action if the authority otherwise possesses the power to take that action.

An assessee must raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the assessment is completed. The Central Board of Revenue has the power to assign assessments to an Income Tax Officer of its choice.

An appellate court should decide a case on its merits using available materials rather than remanding it if the necessary documents are on record. Furthermore, assessments under Section 153A are applicable only if a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A occurred after March 31, 2002.