Draft assessment procedure under tax law remains valid despite concurrent jurisdiction, preserving the extended limitation period.

Where the proposed variation exceeded the statutory threshold, section 144B applied even though the Income-tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A. The draft assessment procedure was therefore validly followed, and the extended limitation period for completing the assessment remained available. The assessment was consequently held not to be time-barred, and the challenge to the section 144B procedure failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was bound to apply section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A, and whether the assessment was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by an earlier decision of the same High Court holding that section 144B was not inapplicable merely because the Income-tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A, where the proposed variation exceeded the statutory threshold. On that view, the draft assessment procedure was validly followed and the extended period of limitation remained available for completion of the assessment.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, holding that the order under section 144B was not bad in law and the assessment was not barred by limitation; the finding was in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---