https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17266 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) lacked jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under section 143(3) without involving the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) as required by section 144B. The assessment order issued by the ITO without forwarding objections to the IAC was deemed illegal and annulled. The appellate authority correctly annulled the assessment, emphasizing the distinction between setting aside and annulling an assessment. The court affirmed the decision that non-compliance with section 144B renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:28:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17266 The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) lacked jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under section 143(3) without involving the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) as required by section 144B. The assessment order issued by the ITO without forwarding objections to the IAC was deemed illegal and annulled. The appellate authority correctly annulled the assessment, emphasizing the distinction between setting aside and annulling an assessment. The court affirmed the decision that non-compliance with section 144B renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17266