https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784838 Whether reopening under faceless scheme was valid when notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the designated faceless authorities: held that the faceless procedure and CBDT guidance, as interpreted in precedent, require notices to originate from proper faceless authorities and not the Jurisdictional AO; the assumption of jurisdiction by the Jurisdictional AO was therefore invalid and vitiated the reassessment. Outcome: notices under section 148 quashed and the reassessment proceedings set aside; appeals allowed. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784838 Whether reopening under faceless scheme was valid when notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the designated faceless authorities: held that the faceless procedure and CBDT guidance, as interpreted in precedent, require notices to originate from proper faceless authorities and not the Jurisdictional AO; the assumption of jurisdiction by the Jurisdictional AO was therefore invalid and vitiated the reassessment. Outcome: notices under section 148 quashed and the reassessment proceedings set aside; appeals allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784838