Assessing Officer made addition under section 69A with respect to said cash deposits.  Commissioner (Appeals) deleted  the addition.  Meanwhile, Jurisdiction Assessing Officer (JAO) also issued reopening notice on very same ground. Assessee filed the writ petition and challenged the  reopening notice on basis of principles as laid down by Division Bench of High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/464 ITR 430 (Bom)(HC). Court held that   JAO was aware of outcome of order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein issue raised in reopening notice was already dealt with but ignored same while issuing reopening notice.  Furthermore, Chief Commissioner also accorded sanction under section 151 for reopening assessment in mechanical manner without application of mind.  Accordingly there would be no justification for Assessing Officer not to consider, discard and overlook legal effect of orders passed by Appellate Authority. Although there was a pronouncement of a co-ordinate Bench of High Court on provisions of law, in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), an affidavit could not be filed before Court, to challenge such pronouncement. Since except for stand taken by JAO that decision of High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) was not accepted by department, so as to justify impugned notices, there was no acceptable justification as to why proceedings qua impugned notice under section 148 would not stand covered by decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). Accordingly the notice and order disposing the objection  is quashed and  set aside. (AY. 2017-18)