Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner as Assessing Officer fails without specific authorisation order under section 120(4)(b).

An Additional Commissioner can validly act as an Assessing Officer only when authorised under section 120(4)(b); a general notification under sections 120(1) and 120(2) is insufficient. Because the Revenue did not produce the specific authorisation order, the scrutiny notice under section 143(2) and the assessment under section 143(3) were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also held that the jurisdictional objection, being a pure question of law based on record facts, could be raised for the first time in appeal, so the additional grounds were admitted and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued under section 143(2) and the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) by the Additional Commissioner were valid in the absence of an order under section 120(4)(b) empowering him to exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer, and whether the assessee could raise this jurisdictional challenge for the first time before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The issue was a pure question of law arising from facts already on record, so the additional grounds were admissible. Under section 2(7A), an Additional Commissioner can function as an Assessing Officer only when authorised in the manner contemplated by section 120(4)(b). The Revenue failed to produce the claimed authorisation order, and a notification issued under sections 120(1) and 120(2) was not enough to confer jurisdiction under section 120(4)(b). In the absence of the requisite order, the Addl. CIT lacked authority to issue the scrutiny notice and frame the assessment.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was accepted, the assessment orders were held to be without jurisdiction, and the assessee succeeded on the additional grounds.

---