Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner was not shown to have been validly empowered to act as the Assessing Officer, and whether the resulting assessment was liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The return had originally been filed before the Income-tax Officer, and the assessment proceedings later shifted to the Additional Commissioner. The Revenue could not produce any order or notification conferring jurisdiction on the Additional Commissioner under the statutory scheme. Section 2(7A) treats an Additional Commissioner as an Assessing Officer only when he is directed under section 120(4)(b). The statutory framework under section 120 requires a lawful allocation of powers, and section 124 becomes relevant only where jurisdiction has been validly vested. In the absence of any proved jurisdictional order or transfer order, mere reference in the assessment order to an earlier assignment was held insufficient. The assessee's objection under section 124(3) was held inapplicable because valid jurisdiction itself was not established.
Conclusion: The Additional Commissioner lacked valid jurisdiction, the assessment order was illegal and without jurisdiction, and the additions were deleted.