Held that  the Assessing Officer had once again examined the assessee’s response to the notice under section 148A(b) and had deleted the reference to income, which on examination, was found to have been declared by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer had also found that there was information which had remained unexplained and had accordingly passed a fresh order under section 148A(d) for issue of notice under section 148. Although the assessee had reiterated that the alleged bogus purchases were genuine, the Assessing Officer had found that they required verification and that the assessee had not produced sufficient material to establish the movements of goods.  That in the earlier writ petition on the contention that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings under section 147 in the faceless assessment regime, the court had observed that the issue was pending consideration in a batch of matters and directed that the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer would abide by the decision in those petitions. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 had been concluded.(AY. 2018-19)