Jurisdictional defect: assessment framed by an improper Assessing Officer under administrative assignment rules leads to quashing.

Assessment validity turned on whether the AO had jurisdiction under administrative assignment rules: CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 requires allocation of metro-city returns above the specified income threshold to ACs/DCs, and an ITO lacked inherent jurisdiction to frame assessment under section 143(3) for such a return. The tribunal concluded that the assessment issued and framed by the ITO was contrary to that assignment and, supported by High Court precedent quashing assessments in comparable circumstances, the 143(3) order was quashed for want of jurisdiction, with relief to the taxpayer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) by the ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata is valid where the income declared in the return renders jurisdiction to the AC/DC under CBDT Instruction No.1/2011.

Analysis: The assessee filed a revised return declaring income above the monetary threshold specified for metro cities. CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 prescribes assignment of cases to ACs/DCs where declared income in metro cities exceeds Rs.30 lakhs. The notice under section 143(2) and the assessment under section 143(3) were issued and framed by an ITO who, on the admitted facts and in light of the cited instruction, did not have the inheritance jurisdiction to proceed. The matter is supported by binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court affirming quashing of assessments where the Assessing Officer lacked inherent jurisdiction in similar circumstances.

Conclusion: The assessment order framed under section 143(3) is quashed for lack of jurisdiction; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

---