Assessment jurisdiction fails where an Additional Commissioner lacks specific empowerment and valid transfer, making the assessment void.

A jurisdictional objection challenging the authority of the assessing officer could be raised as an additional ground because it was purely legal, arose from the existing record, and went to the validity of the assessment; the ground was admitted. An assessment framed by an Additional Commissioner was invalid where no specific empowerment under section 120(4)(b) and no transfer order under section 127(1) existed, because jurisdiction cannot arise from participation in proceedings or from the officer's higher rank alone; the assessment was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee could be permitted to raise additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the officer who framed the assessment; (ii) whether an assessment framed by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, without an order under section 120(4)(b) or a transfer order under section 127(1), was valid in law.

Issue (i): whether the assessee could be permitted to raise additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the officer who framed the assessment.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection went to the root of the assessment and was purely legal in nature. It did not require fresh factual enquiry and could be decided from the existing record. A legal ground affecting the validity of the assessment may be raised at a later stage, and participation in assessment proceedings does not bar such a challenge.

Conclusion: The additional grounds were admitted.

Issue (ii): whether an assessment framed by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, without an order under section 120(4)(b) or a transfer order under section 127(1), was valid in law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats an Additional Commissioner as an Assessing Officer only when specifically directed under section 120(4)(b). Where proceedings are initiated by one officer, transfer to another officer requires compliance with section 127(1). On the record, no such empowering order or transfer order existed. In such circumstances, the officer lacked legal competence to complete the assessment, and the assessment could not be sustained merely because the assessee participated in the proceedings or because the officer was of a higher rank.

Conclusion: The assessment order was without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the jurisdictional challenge, the assessment was annulled, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment framed by an Additional Commissioner is invalid unless the officer is specifically empowered under section 120(4)(b) and the case is validly transferred under section 127(1) where required; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by participation or by hierarchical superiority alone.

---