https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466277 Validity of reopening was decided by reference to whether a notice under section 148 required issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) per the Central Government notification of 29-03-2022; the notice here was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), which the tribunal found invalid and vitiated the assessment proceedings. The tribunal applied the High Court precedent and quashed notices issued by the JAO, holding that noncompliance with the faceless assessment issuance requirement defeats additions sought under the reassessment process; appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jan 2026 19:28:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466277 Validity of reopening was decided by reference to whether a notice under section 148 required issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) per the Central Government notification of 29-03-2022; the notice here was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), which the tribunal found invalid and vitiated the assessment proceedings. The tribunal applied the High Court precedent and quashed notices issued by the JAO, holding that noncompliance with the faceless assessment issuance requirement defeats additions sought under the reassessment process; appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466277