Held that that the notice issued under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d) were issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as required under the provisions of section 151A of the Act. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notices under sections 148A(b) and 148. In view of the law in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom); (2024) 2 HCC (Bom) 204, the notice was unsustainable and consequently, the very manner in which the proceedings were initiated, vitiated the proceedings.  The contention of the assessee on the position in law in regard to the broken period interest on the purchase of hold to maturity securities was accepted and the issue on the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction of the broken period interest was no more res integra. The initial notice under section 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d) and the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147 for the assessment year 2018-2019 were set aside.(AY. 2018-19)