2024 (11) TMI 1201 - HC - Income Tax

Court Confirms Authority of Tax Officer to Issue Notices; Dismisses Jurisdiction Challenge in Faceless Assessment.

NUTAN GEHLOT Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

The court dismissed the petition challenging the jurisdiction of the officer issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Notice issued u/s 142(1) by non jurisdictional officer - As submitted notice issued by an officer, who is not a ‘prescribed income-tax authority’- HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 143(2) clearly indicates that either of the two authorities – either the ‘Assessing Officer’ or ‘the prescribed income-tax authority’ – can issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The expression ‘as the case may be’ also indicates the same. In the present case, the CBDT had issued a notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022, in exercise of powers under Rule 12E of the Rules, and had authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1) Delhi to act as the ‘prescribed income-tax authority’ for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The contention that other than the Assessing Officer, only the authorised Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) can issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act as the same would be in furtherance of automation of such process, is also unmerited. This proposition is not supported by the plain language of Section 143(2) of the Act or Rule 12E of the Rules. Rule 12E of the Rules does not confine the power of the CBDT to authorise only the Income Tax Officers of the NaFAC as the prescribed authority for the purposes of Section 142(1) of the Act. The contention that the prescribed income tax authority can only serve a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act but cannot issue it, is insubstantial. We are unable to accept that the AO did not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice dated 15.07.2024 under Section 142(1) of the Act or that the same is beyond the period of limitation. Once it is accepted that the AO has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act – which is also the contention of the petitioner in this case – the AO cannot be faulted for proceeding to complete the assessment. Issues:Jurisdiction of the officer issuing notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the notices dated 23.06.2024 and 15.07.2024 issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, respectively, 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 that the notice under Section 142(1) was beyond the period of limitation due to the invalid notice issued earlier. The court examined the provisions of Section 143(2) which allow either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority to issue a notice. The CBDT was authorized to designate an Income-tax Officer as the prescribed authority under Section 143(2) through Rule 12E of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. The court noted that the CBDT had authorized the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) to act as the prescribed income-tax authority for issuing notices under Section 143(2) through a notification. The contention that only authorized Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) could issue such notices was dismissed as not supported by the Act or the Rules. The court held that the prescribed income tax authority could issue notices under Section 143(2) and that the officer in this case had jurisdiction to do so.The petitioner also raised an issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in light of Section 144B of the Act, which mandates assessments to be completed by the NaFAC. However, as this ground was not raised in the petition, the court did not address it. The court emphasized that once it was established that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2), the assessment process could proceed without fault. The court ultimately found the petition unmerited and dismissed it along with disposing of pending applications.