Held, allowing the appeal, that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, by its Instruction No. 1 of 2011, dated January 31, 2011, had revised the earlier existing monetary limit for assignment of cases to ITOs, Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners with effect from April 1, 2011, which meant it was applicable to the instant case. In terms of the areas earmarked in the Instruction, the assessee was not located in any of those cities or stations which were categorised as metro cities and, therefore, its case would be that of a non-corporate assessee located in a mofussil area. That being so, the jurisdiction over the case-involving the return filed by a non-corporate assessee located in a mofussil area-was vested with the ITO and not the Deputy Commissioner, who had issued the notice under section 143(2). The notice under section 143(2) issued by the ITO, who was vested with the exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction over the assessee’s case for the year under consideration, was made beyond the stipulated time, and, therefore, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed by him for framing the assessment order under section 143(3). The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was a non-jurisdictional one. As a result, the assessment framed by the ITO by his order passed under section 143(3) on the basis of the notice under section 143(2) issued by the non-jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. As the assessment was liable to be quashed, the adjudication of the other contentions advanced by the assessee regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer, was left open.(AY.2014-15)