https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91649 The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:28 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91649 The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91649