Jurisdictional defect in assessment cannot be cured by participation or delay; void assessment also invalidated revisional proceedings.

A jurisdictional defect going to the authority of the assessing officer can be raised as an additional ground at the appellate stage, and delay or participation in the assessment proceedings does not cure an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no valid empowerment under section 120(4)(b) and no transfer of jurisdiction under section 127(1) authorising the Additional Commissioner to act as Assessing Officer. The assessment under section 143(3) was therefore void ab initio, and the consequential revisional order under section 263 could not survive. The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge and the connected proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee could raise an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax after a long lapse of time; and (ii) whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner without a valid order under section 120(4)(b) or transfer under section 127(1) was without jurisdiction, with the consequent effect on the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): whether the assessee could raise an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax after a long lapse of time

Analysis: The challenge went to the root of the authority of the officer who framed the assessment and was a pure jurisdictional question based on the record. The Tribunal held that such a ground could be raised at the appellate stage, and that participation in the assessment proceedings or delay by itself did not cure or waive an inherent want of jurisdiction. The objection based on territorial jurisdiction was distinguished from a challenge to inherent jurisdiction.

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

Issue (ii): whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner without a valid order under section 120(4)(b) or transfer under section 127(1) was without jurisdiction, with the consequent effect on the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessment record did not show a valid order authorising the Additional Commissioner to exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer under section 120(4)(b), nor a transfer of jurisdiction under section 127(1). It further held that an Additional Commissioner does not ipso facto assume the role of Assessing Officer merely by office rank, and that consent, acquiescence, or the absence of prejudice cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute requires specific empowerment. Since the assessment itself was void, the order under section 154 based on that assessment and the revisional order under section 263 also could not survive.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed as void ab initio, and the consequential order under section 263 was also quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge, resulting in quashing of the assessment and the connected revisional proceedings, while the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional defect going to the very authority of the assessing officer cannot be cured by participation or delay, and an Additional Commissioner can validly act as an Assessing Officer only when specifically empowered under section 120(4)(b) and where required after a lawful transfer under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---