Dismissing the writ petition the court held that   the information received by the Department was specific, clear and unambiguous so far as the involvement of the assessee was concerned. The Assessing Officer after receiving the information had verified the details of the assessee and called for information under section 133(6) of the Act and also obtained bank statement of all concerned and finally observed that the transactions made with two entities through bank channels having direct links with Mahavir Enterprises    as money had been routed through the bank account of Mahavir Enterprises  and  Harsahaben Rashikbharti Gosai (Smt.)   being the proprietor of the concern managed to provide accommodation entries through bogus billing and the sales and purchases shown in the books of the assessee were bogus and the assessee had received the benefit of bogus entries and the income earned from these accommodation entries had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer had initiated the proceedings not only on the information received from the Department but based upon his independent satisfaction and other available material to form a belief with regard to the escaped assessment of income. The notice was valid. Followed Raymond Woollen Mills ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). (AY.2011-12)