https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788741 A notice under section 143(2) issued by an officer lacking the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as a jurisdictional defect, because CBDT instructions vested exclusive authority in the proper rank for metro corporate cases. The defect was held to go to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction rather than a mere irregularity in service, so section 292B could not cure it. On that basis, the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid and the assessment order was quashed for want of a valid notice by the competent authority. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788741 A notice under section 143(2) issued by an officer lacking the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction was treated as a jurisdictional defect, because CBDT instructions vested exclusive authority in the proper rank for metro corporate cases. The defect was held to go to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction rather than a mere irregularity in service, so section 292B could not cure it. On that basis, the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid and the assessment order was quashed for want of a valid notice by the competent authority. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788741