Assessee was an educational institution assessed as a Trust. However, it was neither registered under section 12A nor did it claim any exemption under section 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Cuttack; thereafter the case was transferred from ITO, Cuttack to ITO (E), Bhubaneswar. There was persistent non-compliance on the part of Assessee during the course of proceedings before the AO and CIT(A). Before the Hon’ble ITAT, the Assessee for the first time raised additional legal grounds contending that by virtue of CBDT Circular 52/2014; the ITO(E), Bhubaneswar had no jurisdiction to pass Assessment Order as Assessee was not claiming any exemption under section 10, 11 12 or 13. It was also contended that transfer of case from ITO, Cuttack   to ITO (E)  Bhubaneswar was made without show cause and without passing the order required under section 127.Hon’ble ITAT held that as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Gurukul vs. CIT(E) [WP No.: 9170/2016] held that order passed by ITO (Exemption) was void-ab-inito; as it did not have jurisdiction over the Assesese in that case; by virtue of CBDT Circular 52/2014. However, in the facts of the present case, the Assessee neither raised the objection against the jurisdiction of the ITO (Exemption), Bhubaneswar, nor did it participate during the course of proceedings before the AO and CIT(A). It was held that objection against the jurisdiction, if at all is to be raised, then the same is required to be raised within one month from the service of impugned notice as provided under section 124. Since, Assesee did not challenge the jurisdiction within one month, it cannot now challenge the same during the proceedings before the ITAT. Accordingly, the legal ground challenging the jurisdiction was dismissed. (AY.2013-14)