2026 (3) TMI 1496 - AT - Income Tax

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 ... Validity of assessment framed for want of a valid notice u/s 143(2) - Jurisdictional validity of notice u/s 143(2) - curability u/s 292B HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a corporate assessee in a metro city with returned income above the prescribed threshold, was covered by the CBDT Instructions allocating jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner for issuance of notice under section 143(2). Since the notice had admittedly been issued by the Income Tax Officer, the very assumption of jurisdiction for completing assessment under section 143(3) was by an incompetent authority. The Tribunal held that this was not a mere irregularity in service or form but a defect going to the root of jurisdiction, and therefore section 292B could not cure it. See Sapna Rastogi [2024 (8) TMI 1517 - ITAT DELHI][Paras 6, 7, 8] The additional ground was allowed, and the assessment was held void ab initio and quashed. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) having been issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, the foundation of the assessment itself was invalid. The assessment was accordingly quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed. 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.