Pecuniary jurisdiction for section 143(2) notice is mandatory; a notice by the wrong officer vitiates assessment.

A notice under section 143(2) issued by an officer lacking the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as a jurisdictional defect, because CBDT instructions vested exclusive authority in the proper rank for metro corporate cases. The defect was held to go to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction rather than a mere irregularity in service, so section 292B could not cure it. On that basis, the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid and the assessment order was quashed for want of a valid notice by the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was void for want of a valid notice under section 143(2) issued by the competent authority in accordance with the CBDT instructions governing pecuniary jurisdiction.

Analysis: The assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary threshold prescribed for metro corporate cases, so the jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) vested exclusively in the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The notice was, however, issued by an Income Tax Officer, who lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 dated 31.01.2011 read with CBDT Instruction No. 06/2011 dated 08.04.2011. The defect was treated as going to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction and not as a mere irregularity in service, so section 292B did not cure it.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessment order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 143(2) issued by an lacking the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction is a jurisdictional defect that renders the assessment void ab initio and is not curable under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---