Pecuniary jurisdiction defects in a foundational scrutiny notice render the ensuing income-tax assessment void from inception.

An assessment under Section 143(3) cannot be sustained where its foundational scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Income-tax Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. Where returned income exceeded the monetary limit allocated to that officer under the applicable CBDT Instruction, the notice suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect and could not validly support the ensuing assessment. An objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is distinct from a challenge limited to territorial jurisdiction and is not barred by the applicable limitation. The assessment was therefore void ab initio, with the remaining grounds becoming academic.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment under Section 143(3) was invalid because the initial scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction.

Analysis: The returned income exceeded the monetary limit prescribed for an Income-tax Officer under the applicable CBDT Instruction. The initial scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was nevertheless issued by the ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata, who lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. A notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction is an inherent defect and cannot validly support the ensuing assessment under Section 143(3). The objection concerned pecuniary jurisdiction and was not barred by the limitation applicable to challenges based only on territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment order under Section 143(3) was illegal and void ab initio.

Final Conclusion: The assessment having been quashed on the jurisdictional ground, the original grounds and remaining additional grounds were left open as academic.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment under Section 143(3) cannot be sustained when the foundational scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.

---