Assistant Commissioner authorized to issue Section 143(2) notices under Rule 12E after CBDT notifications

The Delhi HC upheld the validity of notices issued under Section 143(2) by an Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation). The court rejected contentions that only the Assessing Officer or National Faceless Assessment Centre officers could issue such notices. The HC held that CBDT notifications dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 validly authorized the officer as a prescribed income-tax authority under Rule 12E. The court distinguished between "issuing" and "serving" notices, confirming the authorized officer's jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 143(2) and subsequent notices under Section 142(1), finding no limitation period violations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the officer issuing notices under Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of notices issued under Section 143 (2) and Section 142 (1) of the Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 143 (2) and Rule 12E of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962.
4. Authority of Assessing Officer and prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged notices issued under Section 143 (2) and Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the officer issuing the notice under Section 143 (2) was not a prescribed income-tax authority and exceeded the limitation period. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) who issued the notice under Section 142 (1) was also beyond the limitation period due to the invalidity of the Section 143 (2) notice.

The court examined Section 143 (2) of the Act, which allows either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices. The petitioner's argument that only the Assessing Officer could issue such notices was rejected. The court highlighted Rule 12E of the Income-Tax Rules, which authorized the CBDT to designate Income-tax Officers as prescribed authorities for Section 143 (2) notices. The court referenced a notification empowering the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to act as the prescribed authority in this case.

The court dismissed the petitioner's claim that only authorized Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre could issue Section 143 (2) notices for automation purposes. The contention that prescribed income tax authorities could serve but not issue notices under Section 143 (2) was also rejected as insubstantial. The court found that the AO had jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under Section 142 (1) and that they were not time-barred.

The court emphasized that once the AO had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 143 (2), as contended by the petitioner, the AO was justified in proceeding with the assessment. The petitioner's argument regarding the jurisdiction of the AO under Section 144B was not addressed as it was not raised in the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

---