https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468955 Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities under section 120 and the CBDT's monetary allocation directions was central: because the assessee's returned loss placed the case outside the ITO's pecuniary jurisdiction under Instruction No. 1/2011, the reopening notice under section 148 and the completed assessment had to be issued by the ACIT/DCIT. A notice from an officer lacking competence was treated as a root defect, and section 292BB could not cure the absence of a valid notice from the jurisdictional officer. The reassessment was therefore held invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the assessment order was quashed. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2026 12:52:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468955 Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities under section 120 and the CBDT's monetary allocation directions was central: because the assessee's returned loss placed the case outside the ITO's pecuniary jurisdiction under Instruction No. 1/2011, the reopening notice under section 148 and the completed assessment had to be issued by the ACIT/DCIT. A notice from an officer lacking competence was treated as a root defect, and section 292BB could not cure the absence of a valid notice from the jurisdictional officer. The reassessment was therefore held invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the assessment order was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468955