Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : BNP Paribas Vs ACIT (IT) (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 3416/Mum/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/05/2024
Related Assessment Year : 2020-21
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

BNP Paribas Vs ACIT (IT) (ITAT Mumbai)

National Faceless Assessment Centre Prescribed for Issuing Notice u/s 143(2)

Conclusion: National Faceless Assessment Centre was the Prescribed Income tax Authority for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 143, in respect of returns furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 , for the purpose of issuance of notice under sub section (2) of section 143.

Held: Assessee was a commercial bank having its head office in France and had 8 branches in India. Assessee was involved in normal banking activities including financing of foreign trade and foreign exchange transaction. Assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.546,63,91,110/-. The case of assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment and AO issued draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961 proposing assessment. CBDT issued notification treating assessment under Central Charge and International Taxation Charge as separate classes of cases excluding them from faceless assessment. He further submitted that the case of assessee fall in the international taxation division to be assessed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai and notice u/s 143(2) has been incorrectly issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre without jurisdiction, therefore, the same was invalid.  He also referred CBDT Notification No. 25(2021) dated 31.03.2021 which authorized AC/DCIT (NaFAC) to act as a prescribed Income Tax Authorities from 01.04.2021 and therefore ACIT (NaFAC) is the prescribed authority for the purpose of issuing notice u/s 143(2). DR also referred provision of Sec. 143 and submitted that though prescribed authority (NaFAC) may issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and order u/s 143(3) will be passed only by concerned assessing officer. It was held that as per Notification no. 79/2020 F. No. 187/2/2019 ITA the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorises the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (National e-Assessment Centre) having his headquarters at Delhi, to act as the Prescribed Income tax Authority for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 143, in respect of returns furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 , for the purpose of issuance of notice under sub section (2) of section 143. It was clear from the aforesaid notification and provision of the Act that the prescribed authority i.e NaFAC was only authorised to issue a notice under the said section in accordance with provision of the Act. Thus, notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee by the prescribed authority i.e NaFAC was in accordance with the provision of the Act.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031