Writ petition  was filed by the revenue   challenging order passed by Authority for Advance Rulings on ground that it is in violation of jurisdictional bar under proviso to Section 245R(2) that only CIT(A) has jurisdiction to deal with case  and AAR has no jurisdiction to deal with same.  Dismissing the petition the Court held that  two Division Benches  Hyosung Corporation v. AAR (2016) 382 ITR 371 (Delhi) (HC)   Sage Publication Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (IT ) (2016) 387 ITR 437 (Delhi) (HC ) have held that a question cannot be said to be pending under Clause (i) of proviso to Section 245R(2) upon issuance of a mere notice under Section 143(2) especially when it has been issued in a standard pre-printed format and questions raised before authority for advance ruling do not appear to be forming subject matter of said notice—This is also more so when notice fails to satisfy particulars of claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief as mandated by Section 143(2)(i). AAR has followed above- decisions and held notice under section 143(2) merely asks applicant to produce any evidence on which it may like to rely in support of its return. It does not even remotely disclose any application of mind to return filed by applicant. For this reason, AAR has held that that question cannot be said to be pending to attract bar under clause (i) of proviso to Section 245R(2). Accordingly  there is no infirmity in approach adopted by AAR.