JUDGMENT We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Ghildiyal, the learned counsel for the income tax department. 2. It transpires that the deceased Bankey Bihari Agarwal filed his return for the assessment year 2007-08 before the Income Tax Officer, Range-I, Agra, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the previous assessment years, the return was also filed before the same Assessing Officer. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 18th August, 2011 indicating that he has reasons to believe that certain income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act for the said assessment year. 3. The petitioner filed his objection before the said authority in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, 259 ITR 19 specifically taking a ground that the authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act as he was not the assessing authority of the deceased petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra rejected the objection holding that he has reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and, therefore, justified the issuance of notice without disposing of the objection raised by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act contending that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act as he was not the Assessing Officer. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitting that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra was not the Assessing Officer of the deceased petitioner but contended that since the escaped assessment was above Rs.10 lacs, consequently, the jurisdiction to make assessment above Rs.10 lacs under the Act lies with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and, therefore, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was validly issued by the said authority. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that at the stage of issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is not be considered. It is settled law that reassessment notice can only be issued by the Assessing Officer, if he has reasons to be believe that income had escaped assessment to tax. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer for the relevant year as well as for the previous assessment years was the Income Tax Officer, Range-I, Agra and not the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra. Consequently, in our opinion notice for reassessment and the reasons to believe to be recorded can only be done by the Assessing Officer, namely, the Income Tax Officer, Range-I, Agra. Since the same was not done, the notice for reassessment issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra was without jurisdiction. 8. We are also of the view that so long as the file of the assessee is not transferred under Section 127 of the Act, all assessment and reassessment can only be done by the Assessing Officer. 9. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the said authority were without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Our view is also fortified by a decision in Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 220 ITR 446 delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned reassessment notice dated 18th August, 2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.