Valid section 143(2) notice is mandatory; a void assessment cannot support revision under section 263.

Scrutiny assessment without a valid notice under section 143(2) is void in law, because valid service of that notice is mandatory and a defect going to jurisdiction is not a mere irregularity; the assessment was therefore treated as non est. Revision under section 263 also cannot stand where the assessment sought to be revised is itself a nullity, since revisional power presupposes a valid underlying assessment order. On that basis, a void assessment could not be cured or revived through collateral revision, and the revisional order was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment framed without a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was non est in law. (ii) Whether an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained when the assessment order sought to be revised was itself void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment framed without a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was non est in law.

Analysis: The assessment was completed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on the basis of a notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The assessee had objected to the notice within the statutory time. The jurisdiction over the case on the relevant date was found to lie with the Raipur officer, and the notice issued by the Rewa officer was held to be without authority. Since valid notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for scrutiny assessment, the defect went to the root of the matter and could not be treated as a mere irregularity.

Conclusion: The assessment order was held to be invalid and non est for want of a valid notice under section 143(2).

Issue (ii): Whether an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained when the assessment order sought to be revised was itself void for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: Revision under section 263 presupposes the existence of a valid assessment order. Where the foundational assessment is a nullity, collateral revisional proceedings cannot confer legality on it or revive jurisdiction that never validly existed. The Tribunal held that a non est assessment order cannot be the subject of valid revision under section 263.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 263 was held unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the assessment itself was held void for jurisdictional defect, and the revisional assumption of power over that void assessment was also invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision under section 263 cannot validly operate on an assessment order that is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, and a scrutiny assessment without a valid notice under section 143(2) is void in law.

---