On appeal to Tribunal, department argued that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment order as without jurisdiction of the AO, ignoring the provisions of S. 292B and without appreciating that the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, never raised any objection regarding such jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed that CIT(A) has rightly relied on decision of  Norton Motors (supra)? wherein it has been held that S. 292B of the Act can be relied only for registering a challenge to the jurisdictional defect or omission in notice. The P&H HC (supra) further observed that if the particulars of the assessee including its name, status, address, PAN and the AO before whom it was originally being assessed, were not correctly mentioned in order u/s. 127, especially in the light of the fact that the reason for transferring the entity was not mentioned in the said order and no evidence or any record had been produced showing that any opportunity was given to the assessee or that the said order was served on the entity mentioned in the order, such mistakes cannot be said to be technical in nature and are jurisdictional defects not curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Thus, Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A) in annulling the assessment order as without jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal of the Department.(ITA No.  266 to 269/Agra/2013)(AY. 2003-04 to 2005-06, 2008-09)