Facts of the Case

The petitioner, NGR Consultants Pvt. Ltd., challenged the validity of a notice dated 23.06.2024 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with subsequent notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.09.2024 issued under Section 142(1) for Assessment Year 2023-24. The primary contention was that the notices were issued without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act can be validly issued by a “prescribed income-tax authority” other than the Assessing Officer.
  2. Whether such authority can issue the notice or is limited merely to serving it.
  3. Whether notices under Section 142(1) issued pursuant to such notice are time-barred or without jurisdiction.
  4. Whether issuance of notice outside the National Faceless Assessment Centre framework invalidates the proceedings.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer who was not the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and therefore lacked authority.
  • The phrase “as the case may be” in Section 143(2) restricts issuance of notice to either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed authority depending on jurisdiction, not both.
  • Even if authorised, the prescribed authority could only serve the notice, not issue it.
  • Since the notice under Section 143(2) was invalid, subsequent notices under Section 142(1) were beyond limitation.
  • Assessment proceedings should mandatorily be conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Section 143(2) expressly permits issuance of notice by either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Rule 12E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 empowers the CBDT to authorise officers to act as prescribed authorities.
  • CBDT notifications dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 validly authorised the issuing officer.
  • The Act and Rules do not restrict such authority only to NaFAC officers.
  • The notices were issued within the prescribed statutory time limits.

 

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that a plain reading of Section 143(2) permits issuance of notice by either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • The expression “as the case may be” does not restrict jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner.
  • Rule 12E validly authorises CBDT to empower specified income-tax officers, and the concerned officer was duly authorised.
  • The argument that prescribed authorities can only serve but not issue notices was rejected as insubstantial.
  • The Court found no infirmity in the notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1).

 

Important Clarification by the Court

  • Rule 12E does not limit the CBDT’s power to authorise only officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
  • Jurisdictional objections relating to Section 144B cannot be entertained if not specifically pleaded in the writ petition.

 

Final Outcome

The writ petition was held to be unmerited and was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of. The Court affirmed the jurisdiction and validity of the notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770113878_NGRCONSULTANTSPVTLTDVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXANR..pdf 

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.