JUDGMENT : 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. 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 document and the schedule showing the allocation to the relevant officer of the territorial jurisdiction over the address stated in the conveyance document is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "R1" and "R2" respectively." 5. It can thus be seen that even the department agrees that normal assessment of the petitioner lies before circle 4(2), Ahmedabad whereas in the present case, impugned notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of circle 5(2), Ahmedabad. This according to the department happened since in the sale deed, the petitioner was described as an agriculturist. It can thus be seen that even the department agrees that normal assessment of the petitioner lies before circle 4(2), Ahmedabad whereas in the present case, impugned notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of circle 5(2), Ahmedabad. This according to the department happened since in the sale deed, the petitioner was described as an agriculturist. As an agriculturist, having a particular residential address, his assessment would be made by the Assistant Commissioner, circle-5(2) and that is how the impugned notice came to be issued by the said officer. 6. The stand of the department ignores the fact that the petitioner is regularly assessed year after year and originally was within the jurisdiction of income-tax circle-9. Now after restructuring, his assessment takes place before the Assistant Commissioner, circle 4(2), Ahmedabad. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 5(2) had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. She could not have issued notice for reassessment. This is not a mere irregularity or a defect which can be cured, but question of jurisdiction of the authority to reopen the assessment. In administrative or quasi judicial matters, where exercise of powers are well regulated and segregated through rules and regulations or administrative instructions, no authority or officer who is not vested with the jurisdiction of the particular nature can exercise such powers which would be purely a case of lack of authority failing which there would be a total anarchy and any officer positioned at any place may choose to exercise jurisdiction over any assessee. 7. Reference to section 292-BB of the Act by the counsel of the revenue would need summary rejection. The said provision guards against any objection to service of notice particularly when an assessee has despite any defective service of notice participated in the proceedings. Such is not the facts in the present case. The present case is where the issuance of notice itself is bad issued by the authority who was not competent. This is a case of defect in issuance of notice and not service of notice. 8. In the result, only on this ground, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of.