TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Confirms Authority of Tax Officer to Issue Notices; Dismisses Jurisdiction Challenge in Faceless Assessment.</h1> <h3>NUTAN GEHLOT Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR</h3> NUTAN GEHLOT Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR - 2024:DHC:7882 - DB 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
