The assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings for AY 2016–17 on the ground that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), whereas under section 151A and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, reassessment notices post-01.04.2021 were to be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The assessee relied heavily on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT,  ( 2024) 464 ITR 430 ( Bom)( HC))   which quashed reassessment notices issued by the JAO on identical grounds. The issue before the Tribunal was , whether reassessment notice issued by JAO post-01.04.2021 is without jurisdiction in light of the mandate under section 151A and CBDT notification requiring reassessment to be conducted through the FAO.  The Tribunal noted the assessee’s reliance on the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, it also recorded that the operation of the said High Court judgment had been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the Supreme Court stay, the Tribunal declined to follow the said precedent as binding, distinguishing it from ordinary jurisdictional rulings. The Tribunal held that once the judgment relied on by the assessee is stayed by the Apex Court, the principle of judicial discipline does not oblige the Tribunal to apply it. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept the argument that the issuance of notice by the JAO rendered the proceedings void or without jurisdiction. Thus, this issue was decided against the assessee, and the reassessment proceedings were held to be valid despite the procedural objection. Reassessment notice issued by JAO not invalid where High Court judgment holding it so has been stayed by the Supreme Court. (ITA Nos. 4147 to 4153 & 4585 to 4593/Mum/2024 dt 03 -07 – 2025 ) ( AY 2016–17 to 2022–23,