Single judge dismissed the petition. On appeal allowing the petition the Court held that the stand taken by the Assessing Officer to deny an opportunity of personal hearing was not tenable. If credible information was available with the Department such information that the proprietorship concern of the assessee possessed a current account with the Burrabazar branch and the account number was also furnished in which high value transactions were reported it had to be disclosed to the assessee so as to afford it an effective opportunity of submitting a reply. Having not done so, the proceeding was in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly the order passed under section 148A(d) was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer who should afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and all relevant and credible information to enable the assessee to put forth his defence in an effective manner. The assessee would be entitled to reagitate the request for cross-examination of those two named persons and to raise the plea of limitation. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer should pass a reasoned order on the merits and in accordance with law. Matter remanded. (AY. 2014-15)