Jurisdictional validity of assessment: Additional Commissioner lacked lawful empowerment, so the assessment was quashed as void ab initio.

An assessment framed by an Additional Commissioner was found without jurisdiction because no valid order or notification authorising him to exercise Assessing Officer powers was produced. The Tribunal held that a mere reference in the assessment order to an assignment of jurisdiction is insufficient unless the underlying empowerment under the Act is shown, and that an Additional Commissioner can act only when jurisdiction is validly conferred under the relevant provisions. It further noted that objections under section 124(3) do not cure the absence of lawful authorisation. The assessment was therefore treated as void ab initio, illegal, invalid, and quashed for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment framed by the Additional Commissioner was without jurisdiction for want of a valid order authorising him to exercise the powers of Assessing Officer under the Act.

Analysis: The assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner. The assessee consistently sought the jurisdictional order under section 120(2) and section 120(4)(b), read with section 2(7A), but the Revenue was unable to produce any such authorisation. The Tribunal held that mere reference in the assessment order to an assignment of jurisdiction was insufficient in the absence of the underlying order or notification. It followed the view that an Additional Commissioner can act as Assessing Officer only when jurisdiction is validly conferred, and that objections under section 124(3) do not cure the absence of lawful empowerment.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be void ab initio, illegal, and invalid for want of jurisdiction, and was quashed.

---