Assessment procedure under section 144B: breach is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity.

Non-compliance with section 144B in completing an assessment under section 143(3) does not make the assessment void ab initio. The procedure under section 144B governs the manner in which the Assessing Officer must proceed when the proposed variation crosses the prescribed limit, but it does not shift jurisdiction or forum. As the Assessing Officer retains seisin throughout and the Deputy Commissioner's role is only advisory, breach of the statutory procedure amounts to a mandatory procedural irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect. The assessment therefore remains valid, subject to the procedural lapse.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with section 144B in completing an assessment under section 143(3) renders the assessment a nullity or only a procedural irregularity.

Analysis: Section 144B falls within the chapter dealing with procedure for assessment and only prescribes the manner in which the Assessing Officer is to proceed where the proposed variation exceeds the prescribed limit. The jurisdiction to make the assessment remains with the Assessing Officer throughout, and reference to the Deputy Commissioner is only for guidance. Since there is no change of forum and no loss of seisin over the case, failure to follow the statutory procedure does not create an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The defect is one of non-compliance with a mandatory procedural requirement, which makes the assessment irregular but not void ab initio.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with section 144B does not render the assessment a nullity; it amounts to a procedural irregularity. The answer is in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory assessment procedure that does not alter the assessing authority's jurisdiction or forum, if breached, results in procedural irregularity and not a void assessment for want of jurisdiction.

---