https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460760 The assessment was held to be without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner was not shown to have been validly empowered to act as the Assessing Officer. The statutory scheme required a lawful allocation of powers under section 120, and section 2(7A) treated an Additional Commissioner as an Assessing Officer only where he was directed under section 120(4)(b). As the Revenue produced no order or notification establishing such jurisdiction, and a bare reference in the assessment order to an earlier assignment was insufficient, the assessment was declared illegal. The assessee's objection under section 124(3) did not arise because valid jurisdiction itself was never proved, and the additions were deleted. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460760 The assessment was held to be without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner was not shown to have been validly empowered to act as the Assessing Officer. The statutory scheme required a lawful allocation of powers under section 120, and section 2(7A) treated an Additional Commissioner as an Assessing Officer only where he was directed under section 120(4)(b). As the Revenue produced no order or notification establishing such jurisdiction, and a bare reference in the assessment order to an earlier assignment was insufficient, the assessment was declared illegal. The assessee's objection under section 124(3) did not arise because valid jurisdiction itself was never proved, and the additions were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460760