The Supreme Court in the case Anamika Dewan vs Registrar SCI and Ors observed and has asked the daughter of a deceased Advocate seeking allotment of her father’s chambers (Supreme Court) to write to the Lawyers’ Chambers Allotment Committee of the Court. The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar in the case observed and has passed the order while hearing the petitioner, who appeared inperson. The bench asked, How can this court passed the order though you are not an advocate, we should give you the allotted chamber. Adding to which, the petitioner replied, I’ll be completing (my course) in four months. Further, the bench stated while extending full sympathy to help the petitioner that there being hundreds of advocates who have already applied. It is according to seniority. The court stated that, sympathy; This court can help you otherwise but not with a writ of mandamus this court has full. Where there being a question of you being in possession when you are not an advocate? It has been submitted by the petitioner that her father had toiled for 30 long years. However, the bench reiterated that, still, you cannot continue. It is being given based on priority and many other advocates are still waiting. There is a long queue. In the present case, it has then be referred by the petitioner to Rule 7b of the Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules, wherein stating that the son, daughter or spouse of a deceased advocate which can be allotted the former’s chambers provided the respective person is an advocate. The bench headed by Justice Ravikumar pointed out that Completing (the law course) and becoming an advocate is different. The case was not adjourned by the court even after petitioner asked for the matter to be heard in a week. Therefore, the bench was initially inclined to dismiss the matter, owing to the repeated request made by the petitioner citing the ill health of her mother etc., it is being asked her to move the Chambers Allotment Committee. Thus, the respondent or department issued a notice invoking the provisions of Section 148 and seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2016–2017. The petitioner in the case while objecting to the reassessment notice, highlighted that the claim of depreciation of license fees as an intangible asset had been allowed since the assessment years 2007–2008 in several.