Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) IN the writ petition filed correctness of a search conducted, in terms of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the "act"), and legality of an order under Section 142 (2a) of the Act have been questioned. Legality of the search conducted on 22/06/1998 and 7/07/1998 is questioned on the ground that there was no proper authorisation for the search by a competent person in respect of the property, wherein the said search was carried out. But at the time of hearing no argument was advanced in respect of the second plea i. e. , relating to order under Section 142 (2a) of the Act. ( 2 ) BACKGROUND, as projected by the petitioner, is essentially as follows: Petitioner company was incorporated on 31/05/1993 having its registered office at B-362/17, Gali No. 16, Block-B, Bhajanpura, Delhi. On 22/06/1998 Assistant Director of Income-tax, Unit IV (inshort "a. D. I. T. ") searched the premises C-397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi and sealed the premises. A panchnama was prepared, Search party was authorised to search one M/s. Sonu Systems, whereas the petitioner is a private limited company. On 7/07/1998 a second search party again searched the premises in question. It was stated that the search was in continuation of the proceedings on 22/06/1998. Panchnama was prepared and some loose papers and books containing cable connection holders and receipt books belonging to New Star Cable television (in short "n. S. C. ") were found with which the petitioner has no concern. Name of N. S. C. did not find place in the panchnama dated 22/06/1998, but in the panchnama dated 7/07/1998, name of N. S. C. was specifically mentioned in bracket. In the said panchnama, it was also specifically mentioned that seals placed on 22/06/1998 were found intact. On 7/09/1998 Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (in short the "chief Commissioner") passed an order under Section 127 of the Act, whereby cases relating to Shri Tilak Raj Chadha, M/s. Chadha Cloth House, Prop. Smt. Veena Chadha and one M/s. Sonu Systems were transferred from Ward 24 (6) to Deputy Commissioner, SR-36 for investigation and administrative convenience. Petitioner came to know about it on 9/06/2000, when he inspected departmental records after receipt of notice dated 25/05/2000. Smt. Veena Chadha and one M/s. Sonu Systems were transferred from Ward 24 (6) to Deputy Commissioner, SR-36 for investigation and administrative convenience. Petitioner came to know about it on 9/06/2000, when he inspected departmental records after receipt of notice dated 25/05/2000. By the said notice, purported to have been issued under Section 158-BC of the Act, petitioner was asked to file true and correct return in the prescribed Form No. 2b for the block period, mentioned in the notice. After receipt of said notice on 30/05/2000, petitioner applied for inspection of the seized records. After inspection, petitioner came to know that there was no authorisation for search against the petitioner company, and obtained copies of the documents. On 9/06/2000 petitioner submitted its reply to the notice dated 25/05/2000. It was specifically mentioned that, the notice is bad and illegal, as there was no authorisation for search in relation to the petitioner. As there was no violation of the provisions of Clause (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132, the action was incompetent. It was further stated that, petitioner only carried on business between 31/05/1993 to 15/02/1997, and suffered huge losses and ultimately on 15/02/1997 business was closed down. As there was huge losses and there was no positive income, return had not been filed under the Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (in short he "dy. Commissioner") was requested to vacate the notice dated 25/05/2000 and drop the proceedings. On 19th June, 2000, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (in short "jt. Commissioner") issued a letter, whereby petitioner was informed that the case had been transferred to his jurisdiction and that reply dated l 2/06/2000 to the notice dated 25/05/2000 was without substance, as from the panchnama dated 22/06/1998 and 7/07/1998, it was evident that warrants were issued to search premises at C 397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi. Petitioner was again directed to file the return of income in Form 2b. On 5/07/2000 petitioner supplied the details of sales and brought to the notice of the Jt. Commissioner that books of accounts were not available, as they were burnt in the fire, which broke out on 10/12/1996. On 14/07/2000 Jt. Commissioner passed an order under Section 142 (2a) of the Act, whereby M/s. Dinesh Mehta and Co. On 5/07/2000 petitioner supplied the details of sales and brought to the notice of the Jt. Commissioner that books of accounts were not available, as they were burnt in the fire, which broke out on 10/12/1996. On 14/07/2000 Jt. Commissioner passed an order under Section 142 (2a) of the Act, whereby M/s. Dinesh Mehta and Co. , a Chartered Accountant firm, were appointed to audit the seized material, alongwith regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee for the entire block period, and submit report by 8/12/2000. Petition has been filed to challenge such action, ( 3 ) PETITIONER in support of the stand, that there was no proper authorisation by the Competent Authority, submitted that the same was by Additional Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation ). Reference is made to Section 2 (28) of the Act to contend that there was no post of Additional Deputy Director of Income-tax in existence and therefore, the authorisation was not in order. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the search was conducted after authorisation by the Competent Authority. A copy of the warrant clearly mentioned the name of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. The panchnama also mentions the name of the party searched i. e. , M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. The A. D. I. T. sealed the premises on 22/06/1998. The premises sealed were at C-397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi. The panchnama was prepared on the basis of proper warrant of authorisation in the name of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. , which was issued and signed by the A. D. I. T. (Investigation), Unit-III. On 7/07/1998 search was conducted in continuation of the proceedings, which started on 22/06/1998. Inventories were made of the seized documents and a panchnama was prepared. On 7/07/1998 during search operation, it was found that the premises had been given on rent by the assessee to M/s. N. S. C. as stated by Atul Kapoor, proprietor of M/s. N. S. C. His statement was also recorded. In the statement, Atui Kapoor stated that the board of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. was hanging on me premises prior to his taking the premises on rent. He also stated that, to the best of his knowledge, Sh. In the statement, Atui Kapoor stated that the board of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. was hanging on me premises prior to his taking the premises on rent. He also stated that, to the best of his knowledge, Sh. T. R. Chadha was the main person in M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. That being the background, seized documents can be used against the petitioner. Search was a consequence of an action on Shri T. R. Chadha Group, as is evident from the search warrant and the same has been signed and authorised by the A. D. I. T. , Unit-III on 22/06/1998. Name of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. C-397, Chadha Compex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi is duly mentioned in the authorisation on page (2) para (1) of the panchnama. It is clearly stated that the panchas were called on 22/06/1998 at 8. 30 a. m. on the basis of warrant of authorisation dated 22/06/1998. The date 19/06/1998 mentioned in the restraint order under Section 132 (3) of the Act is the date on which original warrant in the case of T. R. Chadha group was signed. Reference was made to the copy of sales-tax return, wherein the party s address was stated to be C-397, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi, from where the incriminating documents were seized. It was submitted that order dated 7/09/1998 by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi does not pertain to the assessee and is irrelevant for the purpose of the case at hand. In the aforesaid background, it has been contended that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. ( 4 ) BEFORE we go to the factual position, highlighted by the parties, it is necessary to take note of a few provisions of the Act. Section 2 (28c) was inserted w. e. f. 1/10/1998 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. Section 2 (28d) was also inserted w. e. f. the said date. Expression "joint Commissioner" means a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner or an Additional Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 117, "joint Director" means a person appointed to be a Joint Director or an Additional Director under Sub-section (1) of Section 117. Section 2 (21) deals with Director General or Director. By Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w. e. f. 1/04/1988, the definition was changed. Section 2 (21) deals with Director General or Director. By Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, w. e. f. 1/04/1988, the definition was changed. Prior to the substitution it reads as follows: "director of Inspection means a person appointed to be a Director of Inspection under Sub-section (1) of Section 117 and includes a person appointed to be an Additional Director of Inspection, a Deputy Director of Inspection or an Assistant Director of Inspection. "after substitution, it reads presently as follows: " director General or Director means a person appointed to be a Director General of Income-tax or, as the case may be, a Director of Income-tax, under Sub-section (1) of Section 117, and includes a person appointed under that sub-section to be an Additional Director of Income-tax or a Joint Director of Income-tax or an Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Income-tax. " ( 5 ) IT is to be noted that expression "an Additional Director of Income-tax" was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w. e. f. 1/06/1994. The word "joint" as presently appearing was substituted for "deputy" by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w. e. f. 1/10/1998. Similarly the expression "word Deputy Director" was inserted by said Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. ( 6 ) MUCH has been made of what is mentioned in the panchnama where the expression "deputy Director" which was already existing was corrected by addition of the word "additional" without deletion of the word "deputy". It is fairly accepted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no post of Additional Deputy Director. We have perused the original records produced before us. They clearly show that the order was passed by the Additional Director of Income-tax on 22/06/1998. The authorisations were issued to Shri Rattan Singh, Anil Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Vikram Sahay. The authorisation was in respect of M/s. Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. , C-397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi. The records clearly reveal that the authorisation was done by the Additional Director. An innocuous omission to delete the word "deputy" from the panchnama in the printed format cannot affect validity of the search. If such clerical mistake or omission are used as the foundation for nullifying or otherwise to prevent legitimate action, that would be improper and inappropriate. The records clearly reveal that the authorisation was done by the Additional Director. An innocuous omission to delete the word "deputy" from the panchnama in the printed format cannot affect validity of the search. If such clerical mistake or omission are used as the foundation for nullifying or otherwise to prevent legitimate action, that would be improper and inappropriate. It has been fairly accepted by learned Counsel for petitioner that the officer who had signed the warrant of authorisation was acting as the Additional Director. That lends credence to the stand of the Revenue. An innocuous mistake in deleting the word "deputy" should not be fatal to the legality of the search. We find no substance in the plea that the search conducted was illegal. As indicated above, no other plea has been pressed into service. Writ application is accordingly dismissed.