Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ.
S.K. Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Direct Taxes - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4845 of 2022, CM Appl. 14449 of 2022, CM Appl. 14450 of 2022, CM Appl. 14451 of 2022, CM Appl. 16190 of 2022, CM Appl. 16191 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Headnote
(B) Faceless Assessment Scheme - Introduction aimed at eliminating human interface - The court affirmed that the principles governing assessment still apply within this digital framework, and jurisdiction lies with the authorities as defined under the Act. (Paras 40-48)
(C) Alternative Remedies - The petition was dismissed based on the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 50-52)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged notices and assessment orders issued in relation to his alleged income as not being served properly and asserting lack of jurisdiction by the officer. He subjugated that he received the notice late and had no income to declare in the relevant year, claiming the amount assessed was an advance payment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that jurisdiction was correctly exercised by the authority, and all proper procedures were followed, with the petitioner being aware of proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the notice’s service and jurisdiction of the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that statutory remedies must be sought prior to judicial intervention and confirmed that assessment under the Faceless Assessment Scheme adheres to established legal standards.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging assessment notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and notice validity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. judgment references supporting petitioner's claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. respondents' defense and legal authority. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. court's analysis on faceless assessment scheme. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 6. court's discretion in jurisdiction issues. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 7. final observations on income assessment. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed. (Para 65) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
INDEX OF CONTENTS
| Preface | 1 |
| Factual Background | 2-4 |
| Submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner | 5-27 |
| Submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue | 28-36 |
| Rebuttal submissions of Petitioner | 37-38 |
| Analysis and Findings | 39-64 |
| Conclusion | 65 |
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
