Jurisdictional defect in tax notice invalidates assessment when no lawful transfer of case records is shown.

A reassessment or assessment cannot be sustained where the mandatory notice is issued by an Assessing Officer lacking territorial jurisdiction and no valid transfer of jurisdiction is shown. The record indicated that jurisdiction lay with the Delhi ward, while the notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Gurgaon ward. Later correspondence reflected only a change of incumbent and did not establish a lawful transfer, and no order under section 127 was produced. The jurisdictional defect was therefore not curable, the assessment order was void, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment was liable to be quashed because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the file was thereafter transferred without a valid order under section 127.

Analysis: The assessee's return records and surrounding material showed that the territorial jurisdiction lay with the Delhi ward, while the initial notice under section 143(2) had been issued by the Gurgaon ward. The subsequent correspondence merely indicated a change of incumbent under section 129 and did not establish a lawful transfer of jurisdiction. No order under section 127 was placed on record to show that the case records had been validly transferred by the competent authority. On these facts, the jurisdictional defect in the issuance of notice was not curable and the assessment could not stand.

Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid, the assessment order was void, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment is unsustainable where the mandatory notice under section 143(2) is issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction and there is no valid transfer of jurisdiction under section 127.

---