Validity of notice under Section 143(2) and AO jurisdiction; notice found invalid and resulting assessment quashed.

Whether a notice issued under the incometax assessment procedure was valid depends on whether the issuing assessing officer had jurisdiction. The note concludes the notice issued by a nonjurisdictional ward was invalid because only records - not jurisdiction - were transferred to the correct circle, and no transfer order under the statutory provision conferring jurisdiction was found; consequently the resultant assessment was quashed. Because the assessment order is held void, revisionary proceedings challenging that void order were held impermissible. The conclusion is supported by prior High Court and ITAT decisions addressing identical facts on jurisdictional notices.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 08.08.2018 by ITO Ward 6(1), Chandigarh was issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated 27.12.2019, founded on the said notice, is valid; (iii) Whether revisionary proceedings under Section 263 and the order giving effect to Section 263 can be sustained when the assessment order under Section 143(3) is void.

Issue (i): Whether the notice under Section 143(2) dated 08.08.2018 was issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The notice was issued on 08.08.2018 by ITO Ward 6(1), Chandigarh. The assessee objected to jurisdiction on 24.08.2018. The scrutiny records were transferred as records only to ACIT, Circle 40(1), New Delhi on 06.08.2019. No transfer order under Section 127 was recorded. The time for issuing a valid Section 143(2) notice for AY 2017-18 expired on 30.09.2018, and no fresh notice was issued by the jurisdictional office within that period.

Conclusion: The notice dated 08.08.2018 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction and is invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 is valid when founded on the invalid notice.

Analysis: The assessment order flowed from the invalid Section 143(2) notice. Prior judicial authority establishes that a notice issued by a non-jurisdictional AO cannot validate subsequent assessment, and transfer of records without a Section 127 transfer does not cure lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment order dated 27.12.2019 is quashed as void ab initio.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings and order under Section 263 and the consequential order giving effect to Section 263 survive where the underlying assessment is void.

Analysis: Section 263 revisional power presupposes a valid assessment order. Where the assessment is non est and void, revisionary proceedings based on that assessment lack foundation. The tribunal relied on applicable precedents holding that nullification of the assessment nullifies consequent Section 263 proceedings and orders giving effect thereto.

Conclusion: The order under Section 263 and the order giving effect to it are quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed; the notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, the assessment under Section 143(3) is quashed, and the Section 263 order and consequential giving-effect order are set aside, resulting in complete relief to the assessee in the consolidated appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice issued under Section 143(2) by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction renders any subsequent assessment under Section 143(3) void ab initio; transfer of records without an order under Section 127 does not transfer jurisdiction, and a void assessment cannot be the subject of valid revision under Section 263.

---