Faceless e-Proceedings: how to respond to department notices without ever meeting an officer

A notice from the Income Tax Department used to mean a queue outside an Aayakar Bhawan and a file under your arm. Since the Faceless Assessment Scheme was notified under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 and rolled into the e-Proceedings tab of the portal, almost every routine communication is now answered electronically, with no officer's name, no ward number, and no physical visit. This guide walks a salaried taxpayer through exactly how that works for Assessment Year 2025-26, from the moment a red badge appears on the dashboard to the second you click Submit.

The Scenario

Picture Rohan Iyer, a Bengaluru software engineer who filed his return for FY 2024-25 (AY 2025-26) on 18 July 2025 under the old regime, claiming Rs 1,50,000 under Section 80C. Six weeks later he receives an email from the Centralised Processing Centre and sees a notification against his PAN. He has never dealt with the department before and his first instinct — to call a chartered accountant in a panic — is exactly the wrong first move. The correct path is Dashboard > Pending Actions > e-Proceedings, the single window through which the department now routes five distinct communications.

Under e-Proceedings a taxpayer may face a Defective Return intimation under Section 139(9), a Prima Facie Adjustment proposal under Section 143(1)(a), a Suo-moto Rectification under Section 154, a general notice from an Income Tax Authority, or a Seek for Clarification request. Each of these carries its own statutory response window, and missing that window has consequences that range from a return being treated as invalid to an addition being made without your side of the story being heard. Knowing which of the five you are staring at is the whole game, and the portal labels it clearly on the e-Proceedings landing screen.

Statutory Answer

The legal backbone of a faceless reply sits in a handful of sections of the Income Tax Act 1961, each viewable on indiacode.nic.in. Section 139(9) deals with a defective return: where the Assessing Officer considers the return defective, the taxpayer is given 15 days from the date of intimation to rectify the defect, a period the officer may extend on a written request. If the defect is not cured, the return is treated as invalid, as though it was never filed.

Section 143(1)(a) is the most common trigger for salaried filers. It permits the CPC to propose six categories of prima facie adjustment, including arithmetical errors and incorrect claims apparent from the information in the return itself. Crucially, the first proviso to the section bars any such adjustment unless the taxpayer has been given an opportunity to respond, and the intimation specifies a 30-day window measured from the date of issue. Silence is treated as consent: if you do not reply within 30 days, the adjustment is carried out and a revised demand or reduced refund follows automatically.

Section 154 allows the department, or the taxpayer, to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The time limits are generous by tax standards: under Section 154(7) an application can be made within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified was passed, and Section 154(8) obliges the authority to pass an order within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received. All of these proceedings are conducted through the same faceless machinery of Section 144B, which is why the reply screen looks identical whether you are curing a defect or contesting an adjustment.

Worked Resolution

Return to Rohan. His CPC intimation under Section 143(1)(a) proposes to disallow Rs 50,000 of his Rs 1,50,000 Section 80C claim, on the ground that an equity-linked savings scheme purchase was not reflected in the reporting available to the department. Before he touches the portal, he should model both outcomes using Oquilia's income tax calculator so he knows the exact rupee stake. The table below sets his return as filed against the department's proposal.

Because the disputed Rs 50,000 falls entirely within Rohan's 30% marginal slab, the arithmetic is clean: Rs 50,000 taxed at 30% is Rs 15,000, plus 4% health and education cess of Rs 600, for a total exposure of Rs 15,600. If he genuinely forgot to invest, he simply selects Agree, and the demand of Rs 15,600 is raised for payment. If, as here, the claim is real, he selects Disagree, states the reason in the response field, and attaches his ELSS account statement and the bank debit entry as proof.

The portal is strict about attachments: each file is capped at 5 MB and the total upload across a single response cannot exceed 50 MB, so a scanned statement should be compressed rather than uploaded as a 12 MB image. Two behaviours catch first-timers out. First, a response cannot be edited or withdrawn once submitted, so Rohan must re-read every figure before the final click. Second, an e-Proceedings response needs no separate e-verification through Aadhaar OTP or net banking — submission through the logged-in account is itself the authentication. Where the reply needs more time, he can use the Seek Adjournment option to request an extension, and if he prefers, an authorised representative registered against his PAN can file the response on his behalf.

Once Rohan uploads his ELSS proof and submits Disagree, the adjustment is examined and, where the evidence holds, dropped, leaving his taxable income at Rs 15,75,000 and his tax refund intact. Had he ignored the 30-day clock, the Rs 50,000 would have been added back automatically and the Rs 15,600 demand would have appeared on his portal under Section 245 machinery, recoverable from any future refund. This is why comparing your regime choice early — using the old vs new regime tool — matters: a deduction you never needed under the new regime cannot become a Section 143(1)(a) headache.

The five e-Proceedings channels and their statutory clocks are summarised below, current for AY 2025-26.

A defect under Section 139(9) most often flags a mismatch between the tax deducted at source in your Form 26AS and the TDS figure you entered, or an unfilled balance-sheet schedule for presumptive filers. You can reconcile the credit side yourself with Oquilia's TDS calculator before drafting the reply, so that the figure you defend on the portal matches the department's own records to the rupee.

FAQ

What happens if I miss the 30-day window under Section 143(1)(a)?

The first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) only requires that you be given the opportunity; it does not require you to use it. If 30 days pass with no response, the CPC proceeds with the proposed adjustment and issues a revised intimation, after which your only remedy is a rectification under Section 154 within four years or an appeal. Responding on time is far cheaper than unwinding a completed adjustment.

Can my chartered accountant respond to an e-Proceedings notice for me?

Yes. An authorised representative who is registered against your PAN on the portal can view and submit the response on your behalf, which is common for taxpayers with complex ESOP or capital-gains cases. You remain legally responsible for the contents, so review the draft before your representative clicks Submit, remembering the response cannot be edited afterwards.

Do I need to e-verify my e-Proceedings response separately?

No. Unlike an income tax return, an e-Proceedings response requires no separate e-verification through Aadhaar OTP, net banking, or a signed ITR-V. Submission from within your authenticated portal session is itself treated as the verification, which is why the department warns that a submitted response is final.

How large can my supporting documents be?

Each individual attachment is limited to 5 MB, and the total across all files in a single response cannot exceed 50 MB. Compress scanned statements to PDF and combine related pages into one file so a bank statement and an ELSS certificate do not each eat into the cap unnecessarily.

What is the difference between a Section 139(9) defect and a Section 143(1)(a) adjustment?

A Section 139(9) defect means your return is incomplete or internally inconsistent and, if uncured within 15 days, is treated as invalid. A Section 143(1)(a) adjustment accepts that your return is valid but proposes to change a figure within it, giving you 30 days to agree or contest. One threatens the return's existence; the other only its numbers.

Can I ask for more time to respond?

Yes. The Seek Adjournment option inside e-Proceedings lets you request an extension before the deadline lapses, and for a Section 139(9) defect the Assessing Officer may extend the 15-day period on a written application. File the request early; an adjournment asked for after the clock has run out carries no guarantee.

Where can I confirm the exact wording of these sections?

The authoritative text of Sections 139(9), 143(1)(a), and 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is published on indiacode.nic.in, and the operational steps for each e-Proceedings channel are documented in the department's own FAQ on incometax.gov.in. When a professional and a WhatsApp forward disagree, the statute and the portal help pages are the only two sources worth trusting.