Income Tax Officer's Jurisdiction Maintained for Rectification Notice Despite Section 157A Challenge.

The HC determined that the Income Tax Officer retained jurisdiction to issue a rectification notice under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, despite the petitioner's challenge based on the introduction of Section 157A for faceless assessment proceedings. The Court allowed the petitioner to respond to the notice, emphasizing that jurisdictional issues could be addressed by the relevant authority. The petition was archived, permitting the petitioner to contest the notice and present jurisdictional arguments as per legal procedures.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to issue a rectification notice under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, in light of the amendment introducing Section 157A for faceless assessment proceedings.

Judgment Summary:

The petitioner challenged a rectification notice issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue such a notice. The petitioner contended that the Act's amendment, specifically Section 157A, introduced a scheme for rectification in faceless assessment proceedings by the Central Government, designating a specific authority to issue rectification notices. The petitioner claimed that since the assessment was conducted by the National Faceless Assessment Center, only the Center had the jurisdiction to issue rectification notices.

The respondent, representing the revenue, countered the petitioner's argument by asserting that Section 157A is an enabling provision allowing the Central Government to create a scheme for rectification, but until a specific scheme designating another authority is produced, the Income Tax Officer remains the competent authority for rectification proceedings as per Section 116 of the Act.

The Court noted that the assessment in question was conducted by the National Faceless Assessment Center, and Section 157A is relevant in such cases. However, since no scheme specifying an alternate authority for rectification was presented, the Income Tax Officer retained jurisdiction to issue the rectification notice. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could raise jurisdictional issues in response to the notice, and those issues would be addressed by the relevant authority.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petitioner to respond to the rectification notice and present arguments regarding jurisdiction, ensuring that any challenges to the notice would be handled according to the law. The petition was archived, leaving room for the petitioner to address the notice and raise appropriate arguments.

---