Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer depends on valid authorisation; assessment fails where no proper order confers power.

An Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner can act as an Assessing Officer only if a specific order under section 120(4)(b) authorises the exercise of those powers and, where jurisdiction is shifted, a valid transfer order under section 127 exists; mere assignment in the assessment record is insufficient. In the absence of such authority, the assessment is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. A challenge to the very jurisdiction of the assessing authority raises a pure question of law and may be admitted at the appellate stage, as it goes to the root of the assessment rather than a mere territorial objection. The Tribunal therefore annulled the assessment and treated the assessee's appeal as successful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner could validly exercise the functions of the Assessing Officer without a separate written order under section 120(4)(b) and a transfer order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the assessee's additional ground challenging the very jurisdiction of the assessing authority was admissible and could be entertained by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner could validly exercise the functions of the Assessing Officer without a separate written order under section 120(4)(b) and a transfer order under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression "Assessing Officer" under section 2(7A) includes an Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner only when such officer is directed under section 120(4)(b) to exercise or perform the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer. The statutory scheme further contemplates a separate order transferring jurisdiction where the case is moved from one officer to another. The record did not show any independent order under section 120(4)(b) or any transfer order under section 127. Mere assignment reflected in the assessment proceedings was held insufficient to confer the requisite legal authority.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional authority to complete the assessment was not validly conferred, and the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's additional ground challenging the very jurisdiction of the assessing authority was admissible and could be entertained by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The objection went to the root of the assessment and raised a pure question of law. It did not require fresh factual verification and could therefore be admitted at the appellate stage. The bar based on section 124(3) was treated as inapplicable to a challenge to inherent jurisdiction, as distinct from a mere objection to territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The additional ground was validly admitted and adjudicated in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was annulled for want of valid jurisdiction in the assessing authority, and as a consequence the assessee's appeal succeeded while the Revenue's appeal and the cross-objection became infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: An Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner can exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer only when a specific order under section 120(4)(b) and, where required, a valid transfer order under section 127 exist; in their absence, the assessment is without jurisdiction and must be quashed.

---