The petitioner is an individual engaged in the business of trading of Arecanut (Supari), Chopped Betal Nut and Sweet Betal Nut. He filed his return of income showing various purchases of arecanut (supari) from ‘Kuhoje  K.  Achumi   and  Om Traders  He had been assessed under section 143(1) of the Act. The  Assessing Officer issued a notice to petitioner under section 148A(b) accompanying the information with the Assessing Officer to suggest that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The information available was that investigating wing of DGGI and GST had informed the Income-tax Authorities that ‘K’ and ‘O’ were found availing and utilizing fraudulent ITC on the basis of fake tax invoices without receipt of goods. It had also been found that the said entities (sellers) did not exist at all at the declared principal place of business. It was from such doubtful units that the petitioner claimed to have made purchases. Petitioner was  given an opportunity under section 148A(b) to show cause as to why a notice under section 148 be not issued to him on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In response to the  notice the petitioner had filed a detailed objection before the Assessing Officer denying the allegations made in the notice. A request had also been made for providing the information relied upon for invoking such proceedings as well as to provide opportunity of cross-examination of the said suppliers. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an order under section 148(d) rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the notice on the ground that information exists to suggest that transactions referred to in the notice are fictitious and without actual supply of goods. This amount had been treated as having escaped assessment for the purposes of initiating proceeding under section 148. Petitioner’s request for cross-examination of suppliers and furnishing of material had also been declined considering the time-barring nature of the matter. A consequential notice had also been issued to petitioner under section 148 of the Act. On writ the Court held that whether formation of opinion by authority concerned under section 148A(d), could not be questioned on basis of detailed defence setup by assessee on merits of information, including opportunity of cross-examining seller or by demanding documents relating to such information  Writ petition was dismissed. (AY. 2019-20)