The assessee filed his return of income, which was later sought to be reopened on the ground that he had made bogus purchases from non-existent or accommodation entry providers. The assessee argued that the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer related to income already disclosed in the return and, therefore, there was no escapement of income.  It was noted that at stage of issuance of notice under section 148, Assessing Officer was not required to conclusively determine income that escaped assessment. Assessing Officer was required to be satisfied that there were reasons that indicated that assessee’s income had escaped assessment.High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer had at threshold stage examined response furnished by assessee and had found it a fit case to continue with re-assessment proceedings, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee was justified. It was also held that even going through materials on record, there was no good reason to interfere with impugned order passed by High Court. Hon Supreme Court held that SLP filed by assessee against impugned order of High Court was to be dismissed. (AY. 2018-19)