On writ allowing the petition the Court held that  there was no merit in the Department’s contention that the time period during which the assessee’s petition against earlier notice, dated July 27, 2022 under section 148 was pending before this court was required to be excluded for the purposes of computing the limitation period. The notice issued in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking approval from the competent authority under section 151. The Department ought to have taken all necessary steps for initiation of the assessment proceedings within the period of limitation in accordance with law. The fact that the Department had not taken the steps in accordance with law could not be construed as a factor in favour of the Department for extending the limitation as stipulated under section 149. No period could be excluded unless there was an express bar created by a court order. The pendency of a petition or a stay of notice could not extend the limitation to issue a fresh notice. The time spent in the earlier litigation could neither be excluded nor could lead to an extension of limitation period under section 149(1)(b). Accordingly, the initial notice under section 148A(b), the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice dated April 24, 2024 issued under section 148 for the assessment year 2016-2017 were set aside.(AY. 2016-17)