Sanghi Steel Udyog Private Limited Vs Union of India And Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The challenge was based on the contention that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), allegedly contrary to Section 151A of the Act.
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the petitioner’s objection was hypertechnical, as the mode of issuance did not affect the contents or validity of the notice. The respondents further relied upon the CBDT Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2023 (F. No. 370153/7/2023-TPL), particularly paragraph 4, which states that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction. It was also stated that Section 144B governs the conduct of faceless assessment proceedings but does not provide for issuance of notices under Section 148, and therefore the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer continues to have jurisdiction to issue such notices.
After considering the submissions and the facts of the case, the High Court relied upon the aforesaid CBDT Office Memorandum and found no merit in the writ petition. The Court held that the challenge to the Section 148 notice was unsustainable and dismissed WPO 1549 of 2023.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Court: Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 11th April, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2019-20 on the ground that the same has been issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer and not by National Faceless Assessment Center as required under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that first of all the ground taken by the petitioner is hypertechnical since mode of service does not affect the contents and merit of the notice and secondly that the issuance of the aforesaid impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act is justifiable and sustainable in law in view of the office memorandum dated 20th February, 2023 being F No. 370153/7/2023-TPL issued by the CBDT and particularly paragraph 4 of the said office memorandum upon which she relies is quoted as hereunder :
“4. It is also pertinent to note here that under the provisions of the Act both the JAO as well as units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction. The Act does not distinguish between JAO or NFAC with respect to jurisdiction over a case. This is further corroborated by the fact that under section 144B of the Act the records in a case are transferred back to the JAO as soon as the assessment proceedings are completed. So, section 144B of the Act lays down the role of NFAC and the units under it for the specific purpose of conduct of assessment proceedings in a specific case in a particular Assessment Year. This cannot be construed to be meaning that the JAO is bereft of the jurisdiction over a particular assessee or with respect to procedures not falling under the ambit of section 144B of the Act. Since, section 144B of the Act does not provide for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, there can be no ambiguity in the fact that the JAO still has the jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties and in view of the aforesaid circular of the Board, I find no merit in the writ petition being WPO 1549 of 2023 and accordingly the same is dismissed.
