Invalid jurisdiction and time-barred notice under section 143(2) rendered the assessment unsustainable and quashed.

An Additional Commissioner could not validly assume the role of Assessing Officer unless properly authorised under the Income-tax Act, and the communication relied on for such authority was insufficient as a jurisdictional order. In the absence of valid authorisation, the notice issued under section 143(2) was without authority. The notice was also issued beyond the statutory limitation period under the proviso to section 143(2). As a result, the assessment framed under section 143(3) was held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner had valid jurisdiction to act as Assessing Officer and issue notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) was sustainable.

Analysis: The order relied upon for conferring jurisdiction was examined in the light of section 2(7A), section 2(28C), section 120(4)(b) and section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held that the communication dated 21.1.2003, signed by the Income-tax Officer (Tech.) for the Commissioner, could not be treated as a valid order of the Commissioner authorising the Additional Commissioner to exercise powers of an Assessing Officer. In the absence of a valid jurisdictional order, the Additional Commissioner lacked authority to issue the notice under section 143(2). The notice was also found to be beyond the prescribed limitation period under the proviso to section 143(2).

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge succeeded, the notice under section 143(2) was invalid and time-barred, and the assessment order under section 143(3) was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 143(2) and the consequent assessment are invalid where the officer issuing the notice is not validly authorised to function as Assessing Officer and the notice is issued beyond the statutory limitation period.

---