https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780638 SC found an unexplained 248-day delay in filing the SLP but, on considering the interlocutory application for restoration, allowed the application and restored the SLP to its original number. The HC had held that notices under section 148/148A(d) were issued by the JAO and not via the mandatory faceless mechanism; SC declined to interfere with the impugned HC order. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:13:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780638 SC found an unexplained 248-day delay in filing the SLP but, on considering the interlocutory application for restoration, allowed the application and restored the SLP to its original number. The HC had held that notices under section 148/148A(d) were issued by the JAO and not via the mandatory faceless mechanism; SC declined to interfere with the impugned HC order. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780638