https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760000 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. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 10:38:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760000 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760000