Case Law Details
Adarsh Developers Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court held that scrutiny notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Central Charge is sustainable in law and hence valid.
Facts- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. The petitioner’s case is that its jurisdictional Assessing Officer is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore [the first respondent] and as such, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, NaFAC-1(1)(2), Delhi [the second respondent] could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue notice dated 29.06.2021 under Section 143[2] of the IT Act because the jurisdiction of the first respondent has not been decentralized insofar as the petitioner. The petitioner contends that because notice dated 29.06.2021 is issued by an officer without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings culminating with the impugned Assessment Order dated 20.09.2022 are without jurisdiction, and hence, this Court must interfere notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has availed statutory remedy against the Assessment Order.
Conclusion- Held that there is a transition from a Scheme notified under the provisions of the IT Act to a Scheme under the IT Act incorporation all the essential without material changes insofar as assessments generally and assessments in the cases of Central Charges and International Taxation Charges and there is nothing in this transition, including the provisions of Section 144B or the CBDT’s Order, to infer exclusion of the operation of CBDT’s order dated 13.08.2020. This Court must therefore conclude that the operation of the CBDT’s order dated 13.08.2020 is saved by the application of the Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Held that the restriction under Section 124[3] of the IT Act on the right to raise the question of jurisdiction must extend to all grounds on which jurisdiction is called in question. If the right to call in question the jurisdiction is left open to be raised at any stage, the proceedings will remain inconclusive and that could not have been the intendment of the legislature.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
