Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer fails where an Additional Commissioner lacks specific empowerment and no transfer order exists.

An assessment completed by an Additional Commissioner was invalid where the officer was not specifically empowered to act as Assessing Officer under section 120(4)(b). A general order under section 120(2) was insufficient to confer the necessary jurisdiction, and no transfer order under section 127 was shown to authorize the change of assessing authority. The assessee's participation did not cure the absence of jurisdiction, and the plea of concurrent jurisdiction failed on the facts. The assessment order was therefore void ab initio, and the jurisdictional objection succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment framed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was jurisdiction for want of empowerment under the statutory scheme and for absence of a transfer order of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory definition of Assessing Officer in section 2(7A) distinguishes between authorities who derive jurisdiction through directions or orders under section 120(1) or 120(2), and Additional Commissioners who can function as Assessing Officers only when specifically directed under section 120(4)(b). A general order under section 120(2) was held insufficient to substitute for the specific empowerment contemplated by section 120(4)(b). The absence of any order transferring the case under section 127 further meant that the officer who issued the notice and the officer who completed the assessment were not shown to have lawful authority to complete the same assessment. Participation by the assessee in the proceedings could not validate an assessment made without jurisdiction, and the plea of concurrent jurisdiction was rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and the jurisdictional challenge was decided in favour of the assessee.

---