In this case the Appellate Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) had been issued on the basis of the address in the PAN application by the AO Circle 34(1) who was neither the AO of the assessee nor was the AO of the assessee as per the address mentioned in the return. There was no order passed under section 127 either by the Commissioner of Circle 34(1) or Commissioner of Circle 47(1). The contention that the assessee should have approached the AO for change of address did not hold good. Therefore, the notice issued by the AO of Circle 34(1) was illegal as the AO of Circle 34(1) had no jurisdiction on the assessee either on the basis of his residential address or on the basis of his business address. Further even it could be presumed that the notice issued by the Circle 34(1) officer was valid its service was not proper as there was a difference in the name mentioned in the notice. Therefore, in view of these facts, the notice, even if presumed to be by the jurisdictional AO had not been served properly. (AY. 2014-15)