Erroneous reference to wrong statutory provision in assessment order does not vitiate proceedings if power exists.

The petitioner, an assessee, challenged an assessment order dated 27.03.2026 issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (Respondent No. 4) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Initially, the Revenue issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), but later withdrew it via letter dated 20.03.2026, stating the petitioner was not an "eligible assessee" under Section 144C(15)(b) and that the draft was issued inadvertently.

Despite this withdrawal, the final assessment order included "Section 144C(3)" in its placitum (header).

The petitioner filed this writ petition arguing that the inclusion of Section 144C in the final order, without following the mandatory procedure (such as allowing objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel), vitiated the entire proceedings.

1. Whether the inclusion of Section 144C in the placitum of the final assessment order, after the Revenue had formally withdrawn Section 144C proceedings, constitutes a failure of mandatory procedure that vitiates the assessment.

2. Whether the availability of an alternative appellate remedy bars the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter.

The court applied Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes mandatory procedures—including a draft assessment order and reference to a Dispute Resolution Panel—specifically for "eligible assessees" involved in transfer pricing adjustments.

Section 144B regarding the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The principle from Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 255, which establishes that quoting a wrong provision of law does not vitiate an order as long as the authority possesses the requisite power under a valid provision.

The court found that the Revenue had explicitly acknowledged the petitioner was not an "eligible assessee" and had formally withdrawn the draft order under Section 144C before passing the final assessment.

Upon examining the body of the final assessment order (Annexure P/10), the court noted it categorically stated that no prejudicial variations arose under Section 92CA(3) and that proceedings were conducted under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B.

The court concluded that the mention of "Section 144C(3)" in the header was a mere "typographical mistake".

Applying the Ram Sunder Ram precedent, the court reasoned that such a clerical error does not invalidate the exercise of power when the substantive authority exists under Sections 143(3) and 144B.

The court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of a statutory appeal, directing that the period spent pursuing the writ (08.04.2026 to the date of judgement) be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing said appeal.