https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784482 The dominant issue was whether scrutiny assessment was vitiated because the statutory notice under s.143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The Tribunal held that where the returned income exceeded the threshold for an ITO in a metro, jurisdiction lay with the AC/DC; hence a s.143(2) notice issued by an ITO was by a non-jurisdictional AO and could not satisfy the mandatory jurisdictional precondition for assessment under s.143(3). Consequently, the assessment framed by another ITO was treated as made without valid mandatory notice and was held void; the appeal was allowed and the assessment was quashed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784482 The dominant issue was whether scrutiny assessment was vitiated because the statutory notice under s.143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The Tribunal held that where the returned income exceeded the threshold for an ITO in a metro, jurisdiction lay with the AC/DC; hence a s.143(2) notice issued by an ITO was by a non-jurisdictional AO and could not satisfy the mandatory jurisdictional precondition for assessment under s.143(3). Consequently, the assessment framed by another ITO was treated as made without valid mandatory notice and was held void; the appeal was allowed and the assessment was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784482