Section 245P — Vacancies, etc., Not to Invalidate Proceedings
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: A validating/saving provision: no proceeding before, or pronouncement of advance ruling by, the Authority is to be questioned or held invalid merely on the ground of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Authority. Sub-section (2) substitutes “Board for Advance Rulings” for “Authority” from a notified date.
Status: No direct case law on s.245P. Candour rule applied; the section is a statutory embodiment of the common-law de facto doctrine, for which cognate authority is supplied.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
1. Object of the section
Section 245P is a familiar species of validating provision found across statutes that create multi-member bodies. Its object is to protect the finality and efficacy of the forum’s proceedings against collateral attack founded merely on a vacancy in, or a defect in the constitution of, the Authority. It is a shield for the institution’s output, not a charter for irregular constitution: it answers the technical objection that a Bench was short of a member or that an appointment was procedurally imperfect, without curing a fundamental want of jurisdiction.
2. Relationship to the de facto doctrine
The provision statutorily embodies the common-law “de facto” doctrine — that the acts of one who holds office under colour of authority are valid as regards the public and third parties, notwithstanding a later-discovered defect in title — explained by the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju. The doctrine and s.245P together ensure that an applicant who has obtained a ruling cannot have it set at naught, nor the Revenue escape it, on the ground that the Bench was imperfectly constituted.
3. Limits
Section 245P saves against “vacancy or defect in the constitution”; it does not validate a ruling vitiated by want of jurisdiction (e.g., a ruling on a question outside s.245N), by breach of natural justice, or by fraud (for which s.245T provides). Sub-section (2) merely carries the saving forward to the Board for Advance Rulings on the notified date.
4. Candour
No reported decision construes s.245P. The cognate authority below is supplied as the nearest governing principle; it is not a direct interpretation of the section.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
The text of section 245P, as it stands in the Act (Finance Act, 2025 base text), is set out below.
245P. (1) No proceeding before, or pronouncement of advance ruling by, the Authority shall be questioned or shall be invalid on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Authority.
(2) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the word "Authority", the words "Board for Advance Rulings" had been substituted.
Editorial note: sub-section (2) substitutes “Board for Advance Rulings” for “Authority” from a date to be notified.
C. AUTHORITIES
Candour rule: there is no case law on s.245P. The cognate authority below states the de facto-officer principle the section embodies.
Cluster 1 — The de facto doctrine (cognate)
Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 132 (SC)
Held: Acts of a de facto holder of office, done under colour of authority, are valid and binding as regards the public notwithstanding a defect later found in the appointment or constitution of the office.
Relevance: States the principle statutorily enacted by s.245P — proceedings/rulings are not invalidated merely by a vacancy or constitutional defect in the Authority.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text is reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the local Act, base text amended up to the Finance Act, 2025), with the publisher's footnote apparatus and amendment-marker brackets removed; no statutory word is altered. Chapter XIX-B (Advance Rulings, ss.245N–245W) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1993; the Authority for Advance Rulings was replaced, for fresh income-tax applications, by the Board for Advance Rulings (s.245-OB, Finance Act, 2021), with a statutory appeal to the High Court (s.245W) and the e-Advance Rulings Scheme, 2022. The Finance Act, 2026 makes NO amendment to any section of Chapter XIX-B. Rulings of the Authority for Advance Rulings are cited as the natural body of jurisprudence on this Chapter; Supreme Court and High Court decisions are flagged as such; there is virtually no Income-tax Appellate Tribunal authority on Chapter XIX-B (advance-ruling disputes travel to the High Court/Supreme Court, not the Tribunal), which is stated candidly rather than padded. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated and the nearest governing authority is given. Citations are stated as reported and have been web-verified; the reader should consult the official report before filing. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.
CHAPTER XIX-B — ADVANCE RULINGS
Section 245P — Vacancies, etc., Not to Invalidate Proceedings
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: A validating/saving provision: no proceeding before, or pronouncement of advance ruling by, the Authority is to be questioned or held invalid merely on the ground of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Authority. Sub-section (2) substitutes “Board for Advance Rulings” for “Authority” from a notified date.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment to section 245P.
Status: No direct case law on s.245P. Candour rule applied; the section is a statutory embodiment of the common-law de facto doctrine, for which cognate authority is supplied.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
1. Object of the section
Section 245P is a familiar species of validating provision found across statutes that create multi-member bodies. Its object is to protect the finality and efficacy of the forum’s proceedings against collateral attack founded merely on a vacancy in, or a defect in the constitution of, the Authority. It is a shield for the institution’s output, not a charter for irregular constitution: it answers the technical objection that a Bench was short of a member or that an appointment was procedurally imperfect, without curing a fundamental want of jurisdiction.
2. Relationship to the de facto doctrine
The provision statutorily embodies the common-law “de facto” doctrine — that the acts of one who holds office under colour of authority are valid as regards the public and third parties, notwithstanding a later-discovered defect in title — explained by the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju. The doctrine and s.245P together ensure that an applicant who has obtained a ruling cannot have it set at naught, nor the Revenue escape it, on the ground that the Bench was imperfectly constituted.
3. Limits
Section 245P saves against “vacancy or defect in the constitution”; it does not validate a ruling vitiated by want of jurisdiction (e.g., a ruling on a question outside s.245N), by breach of natural justice, or by fraud (for which s.245T provides). Sub-section (2) merely carries the saving forward to the Board for Advance Rulings on the notified date.
4. Candour
No reported decision construes s.245P. The cognate authority below is supplied as the nearest governing principle; it is not a direct interpretation of the section.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
The text of section 245P, as it stands in the Act (Finance Act, 2025 base text), is set out below.
245P. (1) No proceeding before, or pronouncement of advance ruling by, the Authority shall be questioned or shall be invalid on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Authority.
(2) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the word "Authority", the words "Board for Advance Rulings" had been substituted.
Editorial note: sub-section (2) substitutes “Board for Advance Rulings” for “Authority” from a date to be notified.
C. AUTHORITIES
Candour rule: there is no case law on s.245P. The cognate authority below states the de facto-officer principle the section embodies.
Cluster 1 — The de facto doctrine (cognate)
Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 132 (SC)
Held: Acts of a de facto holder of office, done under colour of authority, are valid and binding as regards the public notwithstanding a defect later found in the appointment or constitution of the office.
Relevance: States the principle statutorily enacted by s.245P — proceedings/rulings are not invalidated merely by a vacancy or constitutional defect in the Authority.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text is reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (text as printed in the local Act, base text amended up to the Finance Act, 2025), with the publisher's footnote apparatus and amendment-marker brackets removed; no statutory word is altered. Chapter XIX-B (Advance Rulings, ss.245N–245W) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1993; the Authority for Advance Rulings was replaced, for fresh income-tax applications, by the Board for Advance Rulings (s.245-OB, Finance Act, 2021), with a statutory appeal to the High Court (s.245W) and the e-Advance Rulings Scheme, 2022. The Finance Act, 2026 makes NO amendment to any section of Chapter XIX-B. Rulings of the Authority for Advance Rulings are cited as the natural body of jurisprudence on this Chapter; Supreme Court and High Court decisions are flagged as such; there is virtually no Income-tax Appellate Tribunal authority on Chapter XIX-B (advance-ruling disputes travel to the High Court/Supreme Court, not the Tribunal), which is stated candidly rather than padded. Where a section has not been judicially construed, that is stated and the nearest governing authority is given. Citations are stated as reported and have been web-verified; the reader should consult the official report before filing. This material is for professional reference and is not legal advice.