Allowing the petition the Court held that the CPC only acts as a facilitator to the JAO who holds jurisdiction over assessee under S.  120. Merely because the return is processed by CPC, the regular jurisdiction of the JAO is not curtailed and he continues to hold the same jurisdiction. This is evident from the fact that a demand resulting from the processing of a return under S. 143(1) by CPC is also enforced by the JAO. It is JAO who issues a notice under S. 143(2) if the return is to be selected for scrutiny and frames the assessment. Even under the faceless regime, once the assessment has been framed by the Face less Assessing Officer (FAO,)  all records are transferred to the JAO for recovery of demand and other incidental matters. In fact in many matters Principal CIT have exercised jurisdiction in identical situation. Therefore, for respondent No. 1 Principal CIT-5 to say that he will have no jurisdiction to entertain assessee’s application under S. 264 because the Dy. CIT, CPC is not reporting to him is not correct.  Commissioner is directed to dispose the application on merits. (AY.2016-17)