Dismissing the appeal against the order of single judge the court held that the AO having considered assessee’s objection and come to the conclusion that the assessees failed to explain the transaction regarding derivative loss and that the assessee has made claim of fictitious loss, no interference is warranted with the impugned order under s. 148A(d) in writ proceedings; in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 the Court should not interfere in these types of cases where full-fledged investigations are required on alleged fictitious transaction/claim. (AY. 2015-16)