https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791801 A short delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned because the explanation was supported by affidavit, arose after change of counsel, and showed no deliberate or mala fide conduct. The scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Income-tax Officer despite the case falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner level, making the notice a jurisdictional defect. Because a valid notice under section 143(2) is a condition precedent for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the defect could not be cured by the later assessment. The consequential assessment order was quashed and the jurisdictional challenge succeeded. en-us Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2026 08:40:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791801 A short delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned because the explanation was supported by affidavit, arose after change of counsel, and showed no deliberate or mala fide conduct. The scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Income-tax Officer despite the case falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner level, making the notice a jurisdictional defect. Because a valid notice under section 143(2) is a condition precedent for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the defect could not be cured by the later assessment. The consequential assessment order was quashed and the jurisdictional challenge succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791801