Allowing the petition the Court held that the orders under section 143(3) read with section 263 in respect of these two co-owners were the subject matter of further proceedings and had not attained finality. The authority once having accepted the claim of exemption under section 10(37) in the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer’s reopening of assessment of the assessee on the grounds that the issue had not attained finality with respect to those co-owners was not valid. The reopening of assessment was impermissible merely because in respect of other co-owners the claim had not been allowed. Accordingly, the notice under section 148 and the order were quashed and set aside. Once the issue with respect to the other co-owners was finally settled by the High Court, the authority was at liberty to take appropriate corrective measure if permissible in law. Circular No. 36 of 2016, dated October 25, 2016 ([2016] 388 ITR (St.) 48)  (AY.2016-17)