Ambience Farms Private Limited Vs ACIT (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petition filed by Ambience Farms Private Limited against the Delhi High Court judgment concerning the jurisdiction of income-tax authorities to issue scrutiny notices under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly dismissed the special leave petition. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The dismissal left the Delhi High Court’s decision undisturbed, without the Supreme Court providing separate reasons on the statutory interpretation involved.
Read HC Judgment in this case: AO or Prescribed Authority Can Issue Section 143(2) Scrutiny Notice: Delhi HC
The underlying dispute before the Delhi High Court concerned the validity of a scrutiny notice dated 23.06.2024 issued for assessment year 2023-24 by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi, and consequential notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.09.2024 under Section 142(1). The assessee contended that the officer issuing the scrutiny notice was not the competent prescribed authority and that only the jurisdictional Assessing Officer could issue such a notice. It further argued that a prescribed income-tax authority could merely serve, but not issue, a notice and that the subsequent proceedings lacked jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the plain language of Section 143(2) permits either the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority to issue a scrutiny notice. It examined Rule 12E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and CBDT Notification No. 56/2022 dated 28.05.2022, which authorised the concerned Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to act as the prescribed authority for issuing notices under Section 143(2). The Court also rejected the contention that such notices could be issued only by officers associated with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC). Consequently, it found no jurisdictional or limitation defect in the subsequent notices under Section 142(1) and dismissed the writ petition. The additional contention concerning the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction under Section 144B was not examined because it had not been raised in the petition. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP brought the challenge before it to an end.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment; hence, the present special leave petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
