Jurisdictional defect in section 143(2) notice rendered the assessment unsustainable and quashed.

A notice under section 143(2) issued by an Income-tax Officer was invalid where the assessee's returned income exceeded the CBDT-prescribed monetary limit for that officer and jurisdiction lay with the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. The objection under section 124(3) failed because the dispute concerned pecuniary, not territorial, jurisdiction. Applying the cited precedents, the defect in the jurisdictional notice was treated as inherent and incurable, with the result that the assessment framed under section 143(3) was unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice under section 143(2) was issued by a competent jurisdictional assessing officer and, if not, whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) was liable to be quashed as void ab initio.

Analysis: The assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for assessment by the Income-tax Officer, so jurisdiction lay with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The notice under section 143(2) was issued by the ITO, while the assessment was completed by the ACIT. The objection under section 124(3) was rejected as the controversy concerned pecuniary jurisdiction rather than territorial jurisdiction. Following the cited precedents, the defect in the jurisdictional notice was treated as an inherent defect that could not be cured, and the assessment founded on such notice was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) was invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed.

---