The court upheld that a notice issued under the Income Tax Act, if served correctly and within the statutory period, is valid, regardless of procedural arguments raised about personal hearings and jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

INDEX OF CONTENTS

Preface

1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 has been filed by Sh. S. K. Srivastava (retired) seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To set aside and quash the Notice dated 27.03.2021 alleged to have been issued to Writ Petitioner under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as `Act') for assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17 for reassessment of alleged Salary Income of A.Y. 2016-17;

(ii) To quash and set aside Notices under Section 142(1) for reassessment of A.Y. 2016-17, Orders dated 09.02.2022 and Notices dated 04.03.2022 under Section 142 (1) and under Section 144 of the Act for (A.Y.) 2016-17 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred as NFAC) for A.Y. 2016-17 for ex-parte assessment of writ petitioner.

Factual Background:

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside the notice dated 27.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 and further notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 and the order dated 09.02.2022 disposing of objections of National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 04.03.2022 issued under Section 144 of NFAC for framing an ex-parte assessment of Writ petitioner for A.Y. 2016-17. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not have any income, as defined under Section 4 and therefore was not obliged to file return under Section 139 (1). It has been further submitted that the Principle (CIT) (Delhi) had no jurisdiction over the address at Faridabad which is in the State of Haryana, on which notice under Section 148 was issued.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the notice issued under Section 148 as the same was not served within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that NFAC is only an administrative formation and not an Income Tax Authority as defined under Section 116 of the Act and nor is it included in the definition of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) as defined under Section 2(7A) to exercise the powers of framing an assessment. The petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that he has not been given a physical hearing which is in violation of Section 136 of the Act as has been made mandatory by the law laid down in "Sabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT' and Tata Capital Financial Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (3)(1) & Ors.".

Submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner:

5. The plea of the petitioner is that notice dated 27.03.2021 was issued on an address at Faridabad, with which the petitioner has no concern and the notice was neither sent through e-mail nor by text message. The petitioner came to know of the notice for the first time on 24.12.2021 when the text message was sent by the A.O. to the wife of the petitioner, which she then forwarded to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner has stated that notice und