https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776728 The HC held the notice under s.148 for AY 2017-18, issued on 1 May 2024, was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149(1) and therefore invalid; the fifth and sixth provisos cannot extend the restriction period once the notice falls outside the first proviso. The court also ruled the notice invalid for non-compliance with s.151A because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer. Decisions of the Bombay HC on the same issue were applied. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:12:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776728 The HC held the notice under s.148 for AY 2017-18, issued on 1 May 2024, was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149(1) and therefore invalid; the fifth and sixth provisos cannot extend the restriction period once the notice falls outside the first proviso. The court also ruled the notice invalid for non-compliance with s.151A because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer. Decisions of the Bombay HC on the same issue were applied. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776728