NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- The only grievance of the petitioner is against the phraseology used in paras Nos. 3 and 4 of the notice issued by the respondent dated 22.5.2001. In these two paras despite an earlier direction by this Court in W.P. No. 11869/2000, dated 31.1.2001, the respondent appears to have repeated this stance by relying upon two judgments of the Tribunal.
2. In the aforesaid Constitutional petition this Court striked down circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue dated 25.8.1999 which was purportedly based upon the aforesaid judgments of the Income Tax Tribunal.
3. It is complained that despite the aforesaid judgment of this Court the Assessing Officer is repeating his intention to proceed with the matter in the light of the aforesaid circular. That appears to be unfair on the face of it. Particularly when according to the learned counsel for the petitioner a judgment of this Court reported as re: CIT v. Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. (1985 PTD 698) exists on the subject matter holding a counter view.
4. Learned counsel for the revenue on being confronted does not oppose the remittance of the matter tothe Assessing Officer to confront the assessee with a fresh notice without replying upon either the said circular of the CBR or the judgments of the Tribunal. Also the objections both legal as well as factual and the case-law which may be relied upon by the assessee in his reply shall be adequately adhered to and ruled upon before proceeding further.
5. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.