Dismissing the writ petition the Court held that the assessee had neither challenged the validity of the E-Assessment Scheme nor the validity of section 144B of the Act. The assessee had neither filed his return for the assessment year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act nor under section 148 of the Act. According to section 139(1) of the Act, it is mandatory for an individual to file the return if his total income during the previous year exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to Income-tax. Therefore, according to Explanation 2(a) to section 147 of the Act, there was a deemed escapement of income by the assessee. The notice in the present case was dated March 27, 2021. The notice had also been digitally signed on the same day. Thus, the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 was beyond limitation did not hold any force and had to be rejected. The address at which notice was sent by the Revenue was one of the addresses mentioned by the assessee on his portal in terms of section 282 of the Act read with rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The notice under section 148 was uploaded on the e-filing portal of the assessee on March 27, 2021. The assessee had himself chosen the communication address to be at Faridabad, Haryana which was clearly reflected in the document of permanent account number jurisdiction details of the assessee. The assessee had argued that he was not obliged to file any return for the relevant year, as there was no income. The plea of the assessee was that he got an amount as an advance by virtue of the orders of the court and that could not be assessed as an income in his hands for the assessment year 2016-17. Moreover these were disputed questions of fact, which could be agitated before the authority below. The court in the writ jurisdiction could not entertain such pleas. The notice under section 148 and consequent assessment were valid. The Court also held that section 139A(5) makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the assessee to intimate the Assessing Officer with respect any change in his address on the basis of which the permanent account number was allotted (AY. 2016-17)
S. K. Srivastava v. CBDT (2022) 445 ITR 390 / 327 CTR 397//215 DTR 385 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment -Best judgment assessment-Reassessment-Alternative remedy High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot consider facts-Writ was dismissed.-National Faceless Assessment Scheme – Disposal of objections and framing of assessment was done by AO- only orders were conveyed by NFAC instead of AO – Claim of petitioner that NFAC was not income tax authority to exercise power of framing assessment was invalidDuty of assessee to intimate change of aaddress to Imcome -tax Autoriries [S. 139,139A(5), 144 147, 148, 282 Art. 226]