The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of jurisdiction in administrative or quasi-judicial matters, and the lack of authority of an officer to exercise powers outside their jurisdiction.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged notice dated 25.3.2015 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad. He sought to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009.

2. The petitioner is an individual. For the said assessment year 2008-2009 the petitioner had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 20.59 lakhs. Such return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). Thus, no scrutiny assessment took place for the said assessment year. To reopen such assessment, impugned notice came to be issued. The Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing the notice:

"In this case, assessee has filed her return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30.9.2008 with declaring total income of Rs.20,59,230/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. However, no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) or other applicable provisions of the Act has been made in this case. 19.3.2015 through the office of DCIT, Circle 4(2), Ahmedabad regards to Sale of immovable properties amounting to Rs.3,26,40,00/- along with three other partners.

With equal share in said property. One assessee and partners in said properties namely Sh. Prabodh Hargovandas Sanjanwala claimed the said land as agriculture land and claimed exemption of capital gain arising from sale of immovable properties. The report received from the ITO, Ward- Vapi shows that 8.82% of said agriculture land was kharaba i.e. waste land where no agriculture activities were being carried out since preceding two years. The same can also be substantiated from conveyance i.e. sale deed furnished in office of sub registrar, Pardi. The value of said transaction was Rs.3,26,40,000/-. These properties were jointly held by four persons with equal share. Share of one person comes to Rs.81,60,000/-. Kharaba land i.e. waste land percentage is 8.82% of said agriculture land which works out as Rs.7,19,712/-. Therefore, the same amount required to be added in the assessee's total income for taxation.

In view of the above facts and findings, I have therefore the reason to believe that the income of Rs.7,19,712/- chargeable to tax has escaped in the assessee case pertain to A.Y. 2008-2009 due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Thus, considering the facts of the assessee case record and reason mentioned as above the assessee case needs to re-open for reassessment proceeding by issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset made it clear that he is raising only one ground, namely of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 5(2), Ahmedabad who has issued notice in the present case to reopen the petitioner's assessment. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's assessment was being done by circle-9, Ahmedabad. It has now been reorganized before circle 4(2), Ahmedabad. In any case, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, circle 5(2), Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction over the petitioner's assessment. She therefore, could not have issued impugned notice.

4. In response to such issue of notice, Revenue has filed an additional affidavit dated 19.7.2016 of one Narpat Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in which it has been stated as under:

"3. It is submitted that the notice was issued pursuant to the information received from income tax officer, ward 8, Vapi on 12th March 2015. It is further submitted that based on the address stated in the conveyance document, which does not show the occupation of the assessee as a practicing advocate, the information was transferred to the concerned assessing officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, circle 5(2) Ahmedabad on 17th March 2015 who was having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. A copy of the relevant conveyance