Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the  Tribunal had, on the facts, rendered a finding that on the date when the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the authority who issued the notice, namely, the ITO did not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction was with the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal had rightly quashed the scrutiny proceedings as the defect in issuance of notice under section 143(2) was incurable since it went to the root of the matter  Based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1 of 2011 which revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITOs, Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners stating that in cases of corporates in metro cities declaring income above Rs. 30 lakhs, the jurisdiction of such corporate assessees would lie with the Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners, held that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the ITO of the Ward for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13 was without jurisdiction.(AY. 2012-13)