On writ the Court held that in the present facts, first notice under s. 148A(b) was not served in t manner provided. Second, the order under s. 148A(d) was initially not served. Later, it was served with delay of nine months. Even if it is assumed that the objections to jurisdiction (raised by the assessee), had been rejected on 20th March, 2024, there existed no justifiable situation circumstance as may have allowed the assessing authority (whether faceless or otherwise) to pass the reassessment order on the next day, without issuing any further notice in terms of s. 142(1). By taking that course, the assessing authority has consciously allowed a wholly ex parte order to arise. Under the new regime, though the assessing authority may remain faceless, at the same time, it cannot act mindless of the procedural law. In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit at this stage. rules of natural justice are found completely broken in the present case. Hence, the impugned reassessment must be set aside for this reason alone, at this stage itself. Since the assessee is now aware of the contents of the notice dt. 22nd March, 2023, he may furnish reply thereto within a period of three weeks from today. Considering that reply and keeping in mind the observations made above, the reassessment proceedings, if any may arise, be continued and concluded accordingly, without (the assessee) raising any objection as to limitation.. Satish Kumar Bansal (HUF) v. NFAC  (2024) 338 CTR  726 / 237 DTR  354 (All) 354 (All)(HC). (AY.  2016-17)