https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383168 ITAT, Pune rejected the appellant's contention that the CIT(A) antedated his order, dismissing that ground. However, the Tribunal found the notice under s.143(2) dated 08-09-2010 was issued but not served, and no valid service occurred before the cut-off; proviso to s.292BB did not save jurisdiction. Because service (not mere issue) of s.143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement and was absent, the AO lacked jurisdiction to complete the assessment and the assessment order was quashed. Decision in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2025 17:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383168 ITAT, Pune rejected the appellant's contention that the CIT(A) antedated his order, dismissing that ground. However, the Tribunal found the notice under s.143(2) dated 08-09-2010 was issued but not served, and no valid service occurred before the cut-off; proviso to s.292BB did not save jurisdiction. Because service (not mere issue) of s.143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement and was absent, the AO lacked jurisdiction to complete the assessment and the assessment order was quashed. Decision in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383168