Nutan Gehlot Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that CBDT vide notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 has authorised ACIT / DCIT to act as prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a notice dated 23.06.2024 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also impugns notice dated 15.07.2024, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 2023-24. According to the petitioner, the said notice has been issued without jurisdiction.
The petitioner’s challenge to the notice dated 23.06.2024, issued under Section 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.
