Jurisdictional defect in assessment: notice and order issued by the wrong officer were treated as void ab initio.

Jurisdiction under the applicable departmental notification followed the returned-income threshold, so cases exceeding that limit vested in Dy./ACIT-3(1), Raipur. A notice under section 143(2) and an assessment under section 143(3) issued by ITO, Ward-Mahasamund, were beyond the officer's authority. The text states that quasi-judicial proceedings must be taken by the duly empowered authority, and any assessment made without valid jurisdiction is void ab initio. On that basis, the notice and assessment were treated as invalid and quashed, rendering the remaining grounds academic.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 143(2) and the assessment framed under section 143(3) were void for want of jurisdiction in view of the jurisdictional notification governing cases where the returned income exceeded the prescribed monetary limit.

Analysis: The assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary threshold fixed under the departmental notification, under which jurisdiction vested in the Dy./ACIT-3(1), Raipur. The notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order under section 143(3) were nevertheless issued and passed by the ITO, Ward-Mahasamund. Since quasi-judicial proceedings must be undertaken by the authority having valid jurisdiction, an assessment framed by an lacking such jurisdiction cannot stand and is liable to be treated as void ab initio.

Conclusion: The notice and assessment were invalid for want of jurisdiction and were rightly quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional defect went to the root of the assessment and rendered the entire proceedings unsustainable, with the other grounds becoming academic.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment framed by an authority not vested with jurisdiction under the applicable statutory notification is void ab initio and cannot be sustained in law.

---