Triton Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India And Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Triton Overseas Private Limited challenging a reassessment notice dated 28 April 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2019–20. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it had been issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Center, allegedly contrary to Section 151A of the Act.
The Revenue opposed the petition, contending that the objection was hypertechnical and that the mode of service did not affect the substance of the notice. It relied on the CBDT office memorandum dated 20th February, 2023, F No. 370153/7/2023-TPL, which stated that the JAO and units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction and that Section 144B does not deprive the JAO of authority to issue notices under Section 148.
After considering the parties’ submissions and the Board memorandum, the High Court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed WPO 1566 of 2023. The supplied order does not separately adjudicate the underlying reassessment allegations.
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 28th 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. Dutt, 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 1566 of 2023 and accordingly the same is dismissed.
