Court upholds validity of Income Tax Act notice, dismisses challenge on jurisdiction & natural justice grounds.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, finding the notice validly issued within the limitation period. It upheld the jurisdiction of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and determined that the notice was served correctly. The court held that the petitioner was offered a virtual hearing in line with the Faceless Assessment Scheme, concluding that there was no violation of natural justice. Additionally, the court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, dismissing the petition as the petitioner had not exhausted these remedies.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment.
2. Jurisdiction of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC).
3. Service and timing of the notice under Section 148.
4. Opportunity for a physical hearing and principles of natural justice.
5. Availability and adequacy of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 27.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, was not served within the prescribed time, and that the NFAC is not an Income Tax Authority as defined under Section 116 of the Act. The court found that the notice was validly issued within the limitation period and that the NFAC has the authority to issue such notices under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

2. Jurisdiction of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC):
The petitioner argued that the NFAC is only an administrative formation and not an Income Tax Authority as defined under Section 116 of the Act. The court held that the NFAC functions under the authority of the Income Tax Act and that the Faceless Assessment Scheme merely changes the procedure of assessment to make it faceless, without altering the substantive law. The court found no illegality in the NFAC's actions and upheld its jurisdiction.

3. Service and Timing of the Notice Under Section 148:
The petitioner claimed that the notice was not served within the prescribed time and was sent to an incorrect address. The court noted that the notice was issued on 27.03.2021 and digitally signed on the same day, thus meeting the requirement of being issued within the limitation period. The court also found that the address used for service was one of the addresses provided by the petitioner in his PAN details, and that it was the petitioner's responsibility to update his address with the tax authorities.

4. Opportunity for a Physical Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that he was not given a physical hearing, which violated principles of natural justice. The court referred to the Faceless Assessment Scheme, which aims to eliminate human interface and allows for hearings through electronic means. The court found that the petitioner was given an opportunity for a virtual hearing, which he did not avail. Therefore, the court held that there was no violation of natural justice.

5. Availability and Adequacy of Alternative Remedies:
The court emphasized that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for the assessment and reassessment of tax, and for obtaining relief through appeals. The court cited the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained when an adequate alternative remedy is available. The court found that the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory remedies and dismissed the writ petition on this ground.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notice under Section 148 was validly issued, the NFAC had the jurisdiction to issue the notice, the notice was served in accordance with the law, and the petitioner was given an opportunity for a virtual hearing. The court also emphasized the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, which the petitioner had not exhausted.

---