https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463514 Reopening of assessment was contested on the ground that the impugned notice and concurrent order were issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer rather than through the faceless mechanism required by the applicable notification. The court relied on the statutory requirement for faceless compliance and precedent interpreting that mandate to conclude the jurisdictional officer lacked authority to issue the notices. Consequently, the non faceless issuance rendered the reopening invalid and the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the notices issued without observance of the faceless procedure. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2026 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463514 Reopening of assessment was contested on the ground that the impugned notice and concurrent order were issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer rather than through the faceless mechanism required by the applicable notification. The court relied on the statutory requirement for faceless compliance and precedent interpreting that mandate to conclude the jurisdictional officer lacked authority to issue the notices. Consequently, the non faceless issuance rendered the reopening invalid and the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the notices issued without observance of the faceless procedure. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463514