Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 23.06.2024 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice dated 15.07.2024 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2023-24. The principal grievance of the petitioner was that the notices were issued without jurisdiction and were invalid in law.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act can be issued by a prescribed income-tax authority other than the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
  2. Whether a prescribed income-tax authority is empowered to issue a notice under Section 143(2) or is confined only to serving such notice.
  3. Whether the notice issued under Section 142(1) was barred by limitation on account of alleged invalidity of the notice under Section 143(2).
  4. Whether assessment proceedings are mandatorily required to be conducted only through the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B.

 Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer who was not a prescribed income-tax authority and therefore lacked jurisdiction.
  • Even assuming such officer was a prescribed authority, he was competent only to serve the notice and not to issue it.
  • Since the notice under Section 143(2) was invalid, the subsequent notice under Section 142(1) was beyond the prescribed limitation period.
  • Assessment proceedings ought to have been conducted exclusively through the National Faceless Assessment Centre in terms of Section 144B of the Act.

 Respondent’s Arguments

  • Section 143(2) expressly authorises issuance of notice by either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Rule 12E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes to authorise specified income-tax officers as prescribed authorities.
  • CBDT notifications dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 validly authorised the concerned officer to issue notice under Section 143(2).
  • The Act and Rules do not restrict such power exclusively to officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
  • The notices were issued within the statutory time limits.

 

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that a plain reading of Section 143(2) makes it clear that a notice may be issued by either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • The phrase “as the case may be” does not restrict the power of issuance in the manner suggested by the petitioner.
  • Rule 12E validly authorises the CBDT to designate income-tax officers as prescribed authorities, and the issuing officer was duly authorised.
  • The contention that a prescribed authority can only serve and not issue a notice was rejected as insubstantial.
  • The challenge to notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) was found to be without merit.

 

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that Rule 12E does not confine the CBDT’s power of authorisation only to officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Further, issues relating to jurisdiction under Section 144B cannot be examined unless specifically pleaded.

 Final Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed as unmerited. All pending applications were disposed of, and the validity of notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was upheld.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770114019_NUTANGEHLOTVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXANR..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.