https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99684 A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment. en-us Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99684 A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99684