https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465201 ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the reassessment proceedings invalid due to a jurisdictional defect in the notice issued under s. 148A(1). The Tribunal noted that, post the notified faceless reassessment scheme, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the governing notification. Following its earlier coordinate Bench ruling on an identical issue, ITAT quashed the reassessment order, declaring the notice bad in law, while leaving it open to the Revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 19:13:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465201 ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the reassessment proceedings invalid due to a jurisdictional defect in the notice issued under s. 148A(1). The Tribunal noted that, post the notified faceless reassessment scheme, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the governing notification. Following its earlier coordinate Bench ruling on an identical issue, ITAT quashed the reassessment order, declaring the notice bad in law, while leaving it open to the Revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465201