Court held that the first limb of the proviso only excludes the time frame between the date when the notice under S. 148A(b) is issued and the date granted to the assessee to file its response. Based on assessee’s facts, the show-cause notice under S. 148A(b) was issued on 24th May, 2022 asking assessee to furnish a reply by 8th June, 2022. Assessee filed a detailed reply in response to the show-cause notice on 8th June, 2022 and, therefore, only the period from 24th May, 2022 to 8th June, 2022 could be excluded by virtue of the first limb of the fifth proviso to S. 149. Subsequently, assessee received another letter dt. 28th June, 2022 which annexed certain details and provided further time for making detailed submissions upto 8th July, 2022. Even assuming a period of 27 days (i.e., 16 days from 24th May to 8th June and 11 days from 28th June to 8th July) are excluded from the date of the  notice under S. 148 issued on 31st July, 2022, the  notice would yet be barred by limitation and could not have been issued by virtue of the first proviso to S. 149. Court also held that the validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under S 148, which in the present case is 31st July, 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under s. 148 for asst. yr. 2014-15 could be issued on or after 1st April, 2021 based on the first proviso to s. 149. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under S. 148 could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proviso could not save such notices. Fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time-limit of three years and ten years in S. 149(1) are breached. Sixth proviso to S. 149 has no impact as it only provides a situation where after exclusion of the time period referred to in the fifth proviso, the time available with the AO for passing an order under S. 148A(d) is less than 7 days, then the remaining time frame shall be extended to 7 days and limitation also stands extended by 7 days. Revenue is seeking to exclude a period from 21st May, 2021 to 4th May, 2022 relying on UOI. v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 326 CTR 473  /   213 DTR (217 (SC)  which cannot apply. Accordingly the impugned notice dt. 31st July, 2022 is bad in law. Followed  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 337 CTR 257 / 235 DTR 113 (Bom)(HC)  (AY.  2014-15)