ORDER M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the common petitioner - Joy Global (UK) Ltd. has challenged the impugned notices under Sections 142(1) ad 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "I.T. Act") calling upon the petitioner to file the return of income/revised return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Taxation-II, Ahmedabad, who has issued the impugned notices, has no jurisdiction. The impugned notices are sought to be challenged on other grounds also including the ground with respect to the non-observance of the provision of Section 127 of the I.T. Act. 1.1 It is an admitted position that without raising any objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Officer who has issued notice/Assessing Officer, straightway the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Applications. 2. Section 124 of the I.T. Act deals with the requirement of AOs. Section 124 of the I.T. Act reads as under: "[Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers. 124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction-- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer-- (a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or] under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or [subsection (2) of section 115WE or] sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any, over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120.]" Sub-section (2) of section 124 provides that where a question arises under the said section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. Sub-section (4) of Section 124 of the I.T. Act provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 124, where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. Thus, the jurisdiction of the AO can be called in question by the assessee before the AO and if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim with respect to the jurisdiction of an AO, the AO is required to refer the matter for determination of under sub-section (2) (referred to hereinabove) before the assessment is made. Thus, the jurisdiction of the AO can be called in question by the assessee before the AO and if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim with respect to the jurisdiction of an AO, the AO is required to refer the matter for determination of under sub-section (2) (referred to hereinabove) before the assessment is made. It is an admitted position that no such claim is made by the petitioner - assessee calling in question the jurisdiction of the AO. 3. In view of the above, Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press the present Special Civil Applications with a liberty to make appropriate claim before the AO calling in question the jurisdiction of the AO. He has stated at the Bar that such claim and/or objection shall be raised before the AO within a period of 15 days from today. However, has requested to make suitable observation that the AO may be directed to consider and decide the claim made by the petitioner calling in question the jurisdiction of the AO in accordance with law and on merits and if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, he may be directed to refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) of section 124 of the I.T. Act before the assessment is made. 4. In view of the above, without further entering into the larger question on merits and/or without expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, considering the request made by Shri Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner recorded herein above, both these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with above liberty. If any claim is made by the petitioner before the AO calling in question the jurisdiction of the AO within the period of 15 days from today, the AO is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits before the assessment is made. If the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim calling in question his jurisdiction, he may refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) of section 124 of the I.T. Act before the assessment is made, as required to be referred under sub-section (4) of section 124 of the I.T. Act. If the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim calling in question his jurisdiction, he may refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) of section 124 of the I.T. Act before the assessment is made, as required to be referred under sub-section (4) of section 124 of the I.T. Act. The aforesaid exercise by the AO shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the claim by the petitioner calling in question his jurisdiction as observed hereinabove. With this, both these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with above liberty. Notice is discharged.