The Assessing Officer issued a notice dated March 23, 2015 to the assessee under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the request of the assessee, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons for reopening. However, thereafter, the Assessing Officer was transferred and the new Assessing Officer who took charge issued another notice under section 148 of the Act dated January 18, 2016. Again, at the request of the assessee, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The assessee submitted its objections to the reopening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections of the assessee and thereafter, passed an order of reassessment on March 30, 2016. On a writ petition the High Court set aside the reopening of the assessment on the grounds that in view of the issuance of the second notice under section 148 of the Act dated January 18, 2016, the first notice under section 148 dated March 23, 2015 was given up, and the second notice dated January 18, 2016 was barred by limitation, that no reasons were recorded while reopening when the second show-cause notice dated January 18, 2016 was issued and further that the notice dated January 18, 2016 did not specifically mention that it was in continuation of the earlier notice dated March 23, 2015. On appeal  allowing the appeal the Court held that  in case of change of the Assessing Officer section 129 of the Act permits the succeeding officer to continue the earlier proceedings from the stage at which they were before the predecessor officer. The fresh show-cause notice dated January 18, 2016 was not warranted or required to be issued by the succeeding Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter, the issuance of notice dated January 18, 2016 could not be said to be tantamount to dropping the earlier show-cause notice dated March 23, 2015. The reasons to reopen the assessment had already been furnished after the first show-cause notice dated March 23, 2015. The finding recorded by the High Court that the subsequent notice dated January 18, 2016 was barred by limitation was unsustainable. The assessment order was passed on the basis of the first notice dated March 23, 2015 and not on the basis of the notice dated January 18, 2016. Under the circumstances, the High Court erred in quashing and setting aside the reopening of the assessment. The assessee was to be given liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within four weeks, subject to compliance with other requirements, and the appeal was to be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits, without raising the issue with respect to limitation. However, the assessee shall not be permitted to reagitate the question of reopening of the assessment. (AY.2008-09)