The ITO-1 (5), Ludhiana reopened the assessment and issued notice dated 30.03.2017 u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of reasons so recorded. In response to such notice, assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 49,320/-. Thereafter, the assessment was framed by ITO-1(5), Jalandhar assessing the income at Rs. 6,71,915/-. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and raised the objection to the jurisdiction of AO but the Ld. CIT(A) did not find the merit in the objection of the assessee by observing that this objection was not raised before the Ld. AO and upheld the order of Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ITAT. The Tribunal observed that ITO-1 (5), Ludhiana issued the notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 and thereafter the jurisdiction was transferred to ITO-1(5), Jalandhar who never issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act but framed the assessment u/s 143 of the Act. The Tribunal also observed that the erstwhile AO while issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act mentioned that assessee had deposited a cash of Rs.1,39,28,640/- in the bank account which had escaped assessment. However to the contrary, in the assessment order, the subsequent AO mentioned that the cash deposited in the bank was Rs.51,24,064/-. The Tribunal thus concluded that reasons recorded by earlier AO were not emerging from the record available with him. The Tribunal further relying on the decision of the ITAT Agra Bench in case of Jawahar Lal Agarwal vs. ITO where the issue was similar held that the AO may assess or reassess any income escaping assessment, if he has reason to believe such escapement of income. The section starts with the words ‘If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe’. As per section 2(7A) of the Act, ‘Assessing Officer means an Officer, as named therein, who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction. Thus, it was only the Officer having jurisdiction of the matter who u/s 147 of the Act, could have formed any reason to believe escaping assessment and none other. In view of the above, Tribunal held that since the reasons were recorded by the AO who did not exercise the relevant jurisdiction, such reasons were non-est, being in-flagrant violation of the express provision of section 147 r.w.s 2(7A) of the Act. Thus the reassessment order was quashed. (ITA No. 274/Asr./2018 dt. 16.01.2019  (AY. 2010-11)