https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773356 The Tribunal quashed the assessment order for AY 2017-18 after finding that the Faceless Assessing Officer violated procedural requirements by framing the assessment within four weeks of disposing objections against reopening. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Asian Paint Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that a mandatory four-week period must be provided to the assessee after disposal of objections before proceeding further. Since the FAO disposed of objections on 16.03.2022 and framed the assessment on 24.03.2022, the procedural safeguard was breached, rendering the assessment invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground alone. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2025 08:29:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773356 The Tribunal quashed the assessment order for AY 2017-18 after finding that the Faceless Assessing Officer violated procedural requirements by framing the assessment within four weeks of disposing objections against reopening. Following the Bombay HC precedent in Asian Paint Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that a mandatory four-week period must be provided to the assessee after disposal of objections before proceeding further. Since the FAO disposed of objections on 16.03.2022 and framed the assessment on 24.03.2022, the procedural safeguard was breached, rendering the assessment invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this legal ground alone. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773356