Assessee had all along filed his returns with the ITO, Ward 2(2), Bilaspur in the preceding years as well as in the year under consideration. He received a notice under S. 143(2) dt. 1st Aug., 2012 from the ITO, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur. On realizing that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was not vested with him, the ITO at Jabalpur transferred assessee’s case records to the ITO at Bilaspur. Notice under S. 143(2) there after issued by ITO, Bilaspur on 7th Jan., 2014 was barred by limitation.-AO as defined in s. 2(74) takes within its sweep only those Accordingly, the assessment framed by the ITO, at Bilaspur vide his order passed under S 143(3) dt. 12th March, 2014 was quashed. (AY.2011-12)
Hari Singh Chandal (Dr.) v. ITO (2022) 220 TTJ 839 / (2023) 221 DTR 338 /102 ITR 541 (Raipur) (Trib)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Jurisdiction-The ITO, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur was not having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee notice under s. 143(2) issued by him was invalid-Assessment under s. 143(3) framed by the jurisdictional AO at Bilaspur on the basis of the notice under S 143(2) issued by him after the limitation period cannot be sustained-Order was quashed.[S. 2(7A), 120, 127, 143(2)]