https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206530 The dominant issue was whether an assessment framed by an Assessing Officer remained valid despite an alleged transfer of territorial jurisdiction, and whether the assessee could raise lack of jurisdiction for the first time in appeal. The HC held that the burden lay on the assessee to plead and prove when the transfer order was communicated, a fact within its special knowledge; in the absence of such disclosure and any demonstrated prejudice, the jurisdictional objection could not be entertained on presumptions. Since assessment proceedings commenced when the officer had jurisdiction and neither side acted on the transfer, a subsequent change not brought to notice did not vitiate the assessment; at most, remand (not annulment) could be directed. The assessment was upheld and the appeals were allowed in favour of the Revenue. en-us Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206530 The dominant issue was whether an assessment framed by an Assessing Officer remained valid despite an alleged transfer of territorial jurisdiction, and whether the assessee could raise lack of jurisdiction for the first time in appeal. The HC held that the burden lay on the assessee to plead and prove when the transfer order was communicated, a fact within its special knowledge; in the absence of such disclosure and any demonstrated prejudice, the jurisdictional objection could not be entertained on presumptions. Since assessment proceedings commenced when the officer had jurisdiction and neither side acted on the transfer, a subsequent change not brought to notice did not vitiate the assessment; at most, remand (not annulment) could be directed. The assessment was upheld and the appeals were allowed in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206530