High Court emphasizes jurisdiction requirement under Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice timing crucial. Assessee can challenge jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It emphasized the mandatory requirement of issuing notice within a specified timeframe, holding that failure to do so is not a procedural irregularity and is not curable. The Court also ruled that the assessee's participation in assessment proceedings does not preclude challenging jurisdiction. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of complying with statutory provisions on jurisdiction and notice requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of assessing officer under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of notice under Section 143(2) and challenge to jurisdiction under Section 292BB.
3. Duty of assessee to update address in PAN database for jurisdictional purposes.

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer:
The High Court considered the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue contended that the assessing officer had full jurisdiction over the assessee for issuing notice under Section 143(2). However, the Court referred to previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 143(2) within a specified timeframe. The Court held that failure to issue such notice cannot be considered a procedural irregularity and is not curable, thus affirming the importance of complying with this statutory provision.

Validity of Notice and Challenge to Jurisdiction:
Another issue raised was the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the challenge to jurisdiction under Section 292BB of the Act. The revenue argued that since the assessee did not object to the notice and participated in the assessment proceedings, the jurisdiction could not be challenged. However, the Court disagreed, stating that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. The Court highlighted that the assessee had filed an application before the Tribunal to raise additional grounds, which was allowed after due consideration. The Court emphasized that the jurisdictional issue was crucial to the entire proceedings, and the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Duty of Assessee to Update Address:
The Court also addressed the argument regarding the duty of the assessee to update their address in the PAN database for jurisdictional purposes. The revenue contended that the assessee's failure to change the address in the database affected the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. However, the Court did not find merit in this argument and upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions related to jurisdiction and notice requirements. The connected application for stay was also dismissed accordingly.

---