An order under section 127(2) dated 11-1-2023 was passed by the Principal Commissioner, Vadodara-I transferring the case of the petitioner from Vadodara to Central Circle-1(1) Ahmedabad. However, in spite of the above facts, the Assessing Officer at Vadodara issued the notice under section 148A(b) on 14-2-2023 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the notice under section 148 should not be issued for re-opening of the assessment for assessment year 2019-20.  After the order of transfer of the case of the petitioner passed on 11-1-2023 under section 127(2), the Assessing Officer at Vadodara has no jurisdiction to issue the notice for reopening for the assessment year 2019-20. Even otherwise, when the NCLT has approved the application filed under section 13(6) of IBC, 2016 and resolution plan submitted by the applicant was approved, the Assessing Officer would not have any jurisdiction to reopen the assessment with regard to the assessment year 2019-20.  Assessee is engaged in manufacturing of seamless steel cylinder. An application under section 10 of IBC was filed by assessee and same was admitted and an interim resolution professional was appointed. National Company Law Tribunal  (NCLT)  by order dated 16-8-2019 approved resolution plan and final order was passed on 22-10-2019.  Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148A(b) calling upon assessee to show cause as to why notice under section 148 should not be issued for re-opening of assessment for assessment year 2019-20. On writ the Court held that once NCLT approved application filed under IBC, 2016 and resolution plan was also approved, Assessing Officer would not have any jurisdiction to re-open assessment with regard to assessment year 2019-20. Followed,  Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237   (AY. 2019-20)