Jurisdictional authorisation and non-existent assessee defects can render an assessment void ab initio and unsustainable.

An assessment is void where the assessing authority lacks valid jurisdictional authorisation under the statutory scheme, because jurisdiction must be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law and participation by the assessee cannot cure the defect. The text also states that an assessment made in the name of a company that had already amalgamated and ceased to exist is invalid, since proceedings cannot be sustained against a non-existent entity and acquiescence does not validate the defect. On that basis, the underlying assessments were treated as nullities and the related rectification orders could not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment framed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was without jurisdiction for want of a valid order under the governing jurisdictional provisions; (ii) Whether the assessment made in the name of an amalgamated company that had ceased to exist was valid in law.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment framed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was without jurisdiction for want of a valid order under the governing jurisdictional provisions.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings had been initiated in the jurisdiction of one officer, but the final assessment was completed by the Additional Commissioner without any demonstrated order conferring authority under the statutory scheme. The statutory definition of Assessing Officer and the scheme for authorisation and transfer of cases require a valid empowering order before an Additional Commissioner can exercise the functions of an Assessing Officer. In the absence of any order under the relevant provisions, and in light of the settled principle that jurisdiction must exist in the manner prescribed by law, participation by the assessee could not cure the defect.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment made in the name of an amalgamated company that had ceased to exist was valid in law.

Analysis: The undisputed position was that the assessee company had amalgamated with another entity before the assessment was framed, yet the final assessment was made in the name of the dissolved entity. An assessment on a non-existent person or entity is contrary to the basic legal principle that jurisdiction cannot be invoked against an entity that has ceased to exist. The defect is not cured by participation in the proceedings, because consent or acquiescence cannot validate an assessment made on a non-existent assessee.

Conclusion: The assessment was held invalid and void ab initio for having been made on a non-existent entity.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge and the challenge based on amalgamation both succeeded, and the connected rectification orders could not survive once the underlying assessments were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires a specific jurisdictional authorisation or transfer of case, the authority must act only in the manner prescribed; absent such lawful empowerment, an assessment is a nullity, and an assessment framed in the name of a ceased-to-exist entity is equally void.

---