NGR Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that rule 12E of the Income Tax Rules does not confine the power of the CBDT to authorise only the Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) as the prescribed authority for the purposes of Section 142(1) of the Act. Thus, ACIT/DCIT has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 143(2).
Facts- The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a notice dated 23.06.2024 issued u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also impugns notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.09.2024, issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 2023-24. According to the petitioner, the said notices have been issued without jurisdiction.
The petitioner’s challenge to the notice dated 23.06.2024, issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, is premised on the basis that it has been issued by an officer, who is not a „prescribed income-tax authority’. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
Conclusion- CBDT had issued a notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022, in exercise of powers under Rule 12E of the Rules, and had authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1) Delhi to act as the „prescribed income-tax authority‟ for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Thus, impugned notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi. The contention that the said Income Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, is devoid of any merit.
