Held that  merely because the assessee had filed a letter on March 21, 2016 surrendering its registration under section 12A or giving up its benefit of section 11, that did not mean that from the date of the letter, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer automatically got changed. At the time of issuance of notice under section 148, the Assistant Commissioner (E) had valid jurisdiction not only to initiate the proceedings under section 148 but also to pass the assessment order.The contention that, since the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to refer it to the higher authorities in terms of section 124(4) was not tenable because the jurisdiction over the assessee lay with the Assessing Officer, Exemption Circle by virtue of provisions contained under section 120 of the Act. This was a case of jurisdiction assumed by granting registration by the Income-tax Department on the application filed by the assessee which fell within the definition of “class of assessee and class of cases” as defined under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of section 120. The assessee ostensibly fell into a specific category of cases and it was not open to the assessee on its own to remove itself from a specific category of cases and then contend that it should have been assessed by a different Assessing Officer. The matter of jurisdiction is not by the choice of the assessee albeit it depends upon the specific provisions contained in sections 120 and 124. That there was sufficient material to hold that the Assessing Officer had prima facie reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, especially, the manner in which the assessee had taken over the properties of AJL, how the AICC, AJL and the assessee had common control or management, and how the assessee had got benefit by getting the entire shareholding and underlying assets of AJL by merely paying a paltry sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. This itself showed strong prima facie reasons for any prudent person to believe that there was definitely escapement of income. It was not a case of the Assessing Officer seeking to make a roving and fishing enquiry without any basis or material on record. The Assessing Officer had duly applied his mind after incorporating various material and information coming on record and after independently examining them, had recorded the reasons. There was no infirmity or illegality either in the recording of the reasons or assuming jurisdiction or reopening the case under section 147 or issuance of notice under section 148. That since registration under section 12AA had been cancelled with retrospective effect, the challenge to the denial of exemption under section 11 was untenable.  That the challenge to the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was consequential and accordingly, to be dismissed. (AY.2011-12)