Assessing Officer jurisdiction depends on CBDT allocation; assessment by an officer without pecuniary authority is invalid.

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer depends on the allocation made under section 120 read with section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act. Where the departmental order assigned cases with total income above Rs. 35 lakhs to DCIT/ACIT and other cases to the Income-tax Officer, a returned income below that limit placed jurisdiction with the ITO. An assessment completed by the DCIT in such circumstances was treated as made without the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore bad in law. Section 292BB was held inapplicable because it cures defects in service of notice, not a complete absence of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid for want of pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income was below the monetary limit prescribed for that officer.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "Assessing Officer" in section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act links jurisdiction to directions or orders issued under section 120. Section 120 permits the Board to allocate jurisdiction having regard, among other things, to incomes or classes of income. On the facts recorded, the departmental order issued in pursuance of the CBDT notification assigned cases having total income of more than Rs. 35 lakhs to DCIT/ACIT and other cases to ITOs. The returned income being below that limit, the relevant jurisdiction lay with the Income-tax Officer. The assessment was therefore completed by an lacking the requisite jurisdiction. The defect was treated as fundamental, and section 292BB was held inapplicable because it cures defects in service of notice and does not validate a complete absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment framed by the DCIT was without jurisdiction and bad in law, and the challenge to the assessment succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---