Jurisdictional defect in assessment: additional commissioner lacked valid authority, so the assessment order was void ab initio.

An assessment completed by an Additional Commissioner was without jurisdiction where the record showed no valid transfer under section 127 and no authorization empowering him to act as Assessing Officer. The statutory scheme under sections 2(7A) and 120(4)(b) required a lawful conferment of authority before jurisdiction could be exercised, and superior rank alone did not supply it. Mere participation by the assessee did not cure the defect, because jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied in the manner prescribed by law. The assessment order was therefore void ab initio and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was without jurisdiction and void ab initio for want of a valid transfer of jurisdiction and for absence of authority under the statute to act as Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings had been initiated by one officer, but the final assessment was completed by the Additional Commissioner. The record did not disclose any order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 transferring the case to him, and the Revenue failed to produce any authorization showing that he had been empowered to exercise the functions of an Assessing Officer. The statutory scheme under sections 2(7A) and 120(4)(b) required a valid empowerment before an Additional Commissioner could act as an Assessing Officer. Mere participation by the assessee did not cure the defect, and a superior rank by itself did not confer jurisdiction. The legal position also supported the proposition that jurisdictional conditions must be fulfilled strictly in the manner prescribed by law.

Conclusion: The assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and was quashed.

---