The petitioner is a Non-resident Indian from the Assessment year 2017-18  to 2023 -24 .  During the year under consideration i.e., AY 2016-17 the Petitioner was a resident. In March 2023 a Notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not from the International ward on the ground that there was no time to migrate the PAN to International ward.  On Writ, it was held that the jurisdiction should be checked at the time of issuance of the Notice and according to CBDT notification no. No. 57 of 2014 dated November 03, 2014, issued under Section 120 of the Act, the Officer from the International Tax Ward is the officer having jurisdiction over the Petitioner and should have issued the Notice. Further, there was an admission by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer that he had no jurisdiction, but because there was no time to mitigate the PAN at that stage he issued the reassessment notice and the High Court was not satisfied with the said explanation. The Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, Order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and Notice issued under section 148 of the Act were quashed. The Honourable Curt also observed that the Assessing Officer has taken dishonest stand .Referred  CIT v. M.I. Builders (P.) Limited [2014]44 taxmann.com 360 (/349 ITR 271 All)(HC), Pavan Morarka v. ACIT [2022]136 taxmann.com 2 (Bom)(HC)   (AY. 2016 -17 ) (WP No. 1933 of 2023 dt .28 -3 -2024 )