BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW V. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

ITA 304/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Bindu Kumar, the appellant, who contested the additions made to her income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash credits during the demonetization period. The ITO had initially selected the case for limited scrutiny due to significant cash deposits reported during demonetization. However, upon finding that the actual cash deposits were only Rs. 3,92,500, the AO expanded the scrutiny to all credits in the bank account, leading to the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309 as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, prompting the appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT found procedural lapses in the AO's actions and ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of adhering to CBDT guidelines in scrutiny assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707166 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd., Vudatha Vani Rao vs. ITO, Srimanta Kumar Shit vs. ACIT, Atul Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT, Sanjay Kumar Bejwani vs. ITO, Rahul Bajpai vs. DCIT, Dahila Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KRISHNA SHARMA; ADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K. KAPOOR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.304/LKW/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Bindu Kumar, Imiliha, Dhawan, Lucknow, U.P. 226019 vs. ITO-1(1), Lucknow (New), Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, U.P.-226001 PAN:AGTPK6157D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 30.04.2025 Date of pronouncement: 10.07.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 1.08.2023, in which the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ITO-1(1), Lucknow passed on 18.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal cum statement of facts are as under: - “1. The case has been selected for limited scrutiny under the reason cash deposit during the year, as this was the year of demonetization. For the purpose of limited scrutiny, the assessing has served the notice dated 04/12/2019, stating that as per the SFT data available during the FY 2016-17 the assessee has deposited the cash amounting to Rs. 3,35,18,807/- in his bank A/c no. 2170201000579 with Canara bank. Here it is pertain to note that, the submission of the department is totally wrong. During the FY 2016-17, the assessee has made only 2 cash deposits in his bank account totaling to Rs. 3,92,500/-. One on 08.07.2016 of Rs. 2,20,000/- and another on 10.11.2016 of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Which means during demonetization assessee has made only cash deposit of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Here it is also to be noted ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 2 that the said amount out of the cash withdrawal made by the assessee on 08.11.2016 of Rs. 82,000/- and Rs. 1,55,000/- on 04.11.2016. It is very clear from the bank statement that the amount deposited by the assessee during demonetization is out of the recent cash withdrawal only. One of such withdrawal on of 08.11.2016 only. The amount Rs. 3,35,18,807/- mentioned as cash deposits are not cash deposit but are the total of all credit entries in bank account and that also of the entire FY 2016-17. The bank statement is attached for the reference. 2. Further, as per the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has considered the total credits of Rs. 3,35,18,807/- as cash credits, which is mentioned in point no. 4 also of the assessment order, whereas in point no. 4.1 and point no. 6 the AO has wrongly considered the amount as Rs. 3,94,01,990/-. It appears that the AO has wrongly included the opening balance of Rs. 4,032,609/- of bank balance as credits during the year. The assessing officer has considered the total receipts as Rs. 3,94,01,990/- instead of Rs. 3,35,18,807/- and compared the same with the total turnover as reported by the assessee in his income tax return and the audited financials as filled by the assessee. 3. It is to be mentioned that the assessee for the AY 2017-18 was liable to audit u/s 44AB of the act, and the financials of the assessee was duly audited and filled by the assessee. As per the audited financial statements, the assessee has reported the total business turnover as Rs. 2,79,58,681/-. The assessing officer has compared this turnover with credits in bank a/c as Rs. 3,94,01,990/ instead of Rs. 3,35,18,807/- and arrived at the differential figure of Rs. 1,14,43,309/- and added the same as unexplained income. The reconciliation between the receipts as per bank and turnover as per audited financials was also provided during the appeal proceedings before CIT(A) and it is to be mentioned that there are no unaccounted receipts. Bindu Kumar (IT PA No. AGTPK6157D) Reconciliation between bank receipts and Turnover Gross Turnover as per Balance Sheet 2,79,58,680.71 Add: Service Tax charged 31,09,773.30 Add: Opening debtors realized in CY 11,09,736.72 Less: Closing debtors balance (1,62,343,50) Less: TDS deducted (5,59,265.00) Received from customer 3,14,56,582.23 Add: TDS refund received 4,48,050.00 Add: Salary Cheque returned 7,818.00 Add: Credit against OD limit received 8,99,000.00 Add: Cash Deposited in bank 3,92,500.00 Add: UL received back 3,14,850.00 Total Credits in Bank 3,35,18,800.23 ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 3 Without considering the above facts and records the assessment was completed by the AO determining the total income at Rs. 1,29,56,775/-against the retuned income of Rs. 15,13,466/-. 4. Further, as against the order of the AO an appeal before CIT(A) was filled, which is also decided by the CIT(A) and an order is passed on 01.08.2023 u/s 250 of Income Tax Act. 5. The order passed by the CIT(A) is reproduced here below: Decision: In this case the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer worth Rs.1,14,43,309/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has made cash deposits during demonetization period. The appellant was asked to furnish cash book, details of daily cash summary and source of cash deposited during the period, the month wise details of gross receipts of F.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and month wise cash deposits from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. No proper reply along with the books of accounts and evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Now before me in the appellate proceedings, written submission has been filed. I have gone through the written submission. It has been mentioned that the cash deposit has been made through RTGS. Proper evidences with books of accounts have not been filed to explain the source of the cash deposit. No comparative figure of RTGS deposits have been given of last three years. Even address and PAN of customers have not been given. Hence, the cash deposits made during the time of demonetization remains unexplained. Hence, the addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this ground. In the order passed by the CIT(A), it is being mentioned that proper source of the cash deposit has not been filled by the assessee, hence the cash deposits made during the demonetization period remains unexplained. But as here it is to be noted that there are no cash deposit made by the assessee during demonetization except that of Rs. 1,72,500/-, which has been explained above. In the order passed by the CIT(A), it is being mentioned that no explanation and evidences are produced by the assessee, whereas, we had submitted the bank statements, financials, Form 26AS and all other explanations. But the order is passed without considering these facts.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2017-18 was selected for limited scrutiny, for the reasons, “cash deposited during the year”. Notices were issued by the ld. AO, but he records that the assessee only submitted part replies. The ld. AO noted, that as per SFT data available on the ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 4 Departmental portal, it was found that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.3,35,18,807/- during the period of demonetization in its Canara Bank A/c No.2170201000579. In response, the assessee submitted that only a sum of Rs.3,92,500/- had been deposited in cash into the said bank accounts on 8.07.2016 and 10.11.2016 and that the assessee was engaged in business of Manpower Supply Services to Tata Motors Limited, who had made payment to her current account by RTGS and NEFT for services provided. Despite recording his satisfaction about the extent of cash deposited into the said bank account, the ld. AO thereafter, asked the assessee to produce copy of cash book for the period 1.10.2016 to 31.12.2016; to furnish daily cash summary; to furnish the details regarding nature and source of cash deposited during the year; to furnish month-wise details of gross receipts for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 and 2017-18 and to furnish month-wise cash deposits from 1.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. However, the ld. AO records that the assessee did not make any compliance to the said notice. Therefore, the ld. AO records that he issued another notice under section 142(1) asking the assessee as to why the cash deposits during the year may not be treated as unexplained and added to his total income for the year. Apparently, no reply was received to this show cause notice. The ld. AO, thereafter observed that the assessee had total credits of Rs.3,94,01,990/- during the financial year 2016-17 whereas in her ITR filed for the relevant assessment year, she had declared total receipts of Rs.2,79,58,681/- only. Since, in his view the assessee had no cogent explanation in respect of the nature and sources of cash credits in its books of accounts against the credits which were excess to turnover made in the bank a/c no.2170201000579 with Canara Bank, he held that a sum of Rs.1,14,43,309/- was unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and he added them back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the total cash deposited in the bank were only ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 5 Rs. 3,92,500/- and the total amount credited in the said bank account was Rs. 3,35,18,807/-. The assessee also provided a re-conciliation chart before the ld. CIT(A) in which it tried to show that no portion of these credits of Rs.3,35,18,800.23 was unexplained, with relation to its gross turnover as shown in the balance-sheet. It was also submitted that the assessee was not aware as to where the ld. AO had obtained a figure of Rs.3,94,01,990/- from. It was submitted that the assessee was liable to audit and had had its accounts audited under section 44AB. Both the turnover and the credits had been duly audited and therefore, there was no basis for making an addition of Rs.1,14,43,309/- by the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) considered this submission, but noted that the assessee had made cash deposits during the demonetization period and had been asked to furnish cash book, details of cash summary and source of cash deposited during this period along with the month-wise details of gross receipts of F.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the month-wise cash deposits from 1.04.2015 to 31.03.2017 and since no proper reply along with books of accounts and other evidences had been produced before the ld. AO, the ld. AO had made the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309/-. Now in appeal proceedings also, proper books of accounts had not been filed to explain the source of cash deposits and no comparative figure of RTGS deposits had been given of the last three years. Even the address and PAN numbers had not been given. Hence, the cash deposits made during the time of demonetization remained unexplained. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee is aggrieved at this summary disposal of this appeal by the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly come before us. Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. representing the case of the assessee, pointed out that the entire addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A), was based upon the fundamental mis-conception of facts i.e. that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 3,35,18,800/- in its current account with Canara Bank, whereas the truth of the matter is that the assessee had only made cash ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 6 deposits of Rs. 3,92,500/- and the remaining amounts were credits in its accounts which had been duly reconciled before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee was a manpower supplier to M/s Tata Motors Limited and the large majority of payments was on account of receipts from M/s Tata Motors. The total turnover of the assessee from such business was Rs.2,79,58,680.71/- and the difference in this turnover and the amounts credited in the bank account maintained with Canara Bank had been reconciled as under:- Gross Turnover as per Balance Sheet 2,79,58,680.71 Add: Service Tax charged 31,09,773.30 Add: Opening debtors realized in CY 11,09,736.72 Less: Closing debtors balance (1,62,343,50) Less: TDS deducted (5,59,265.00) Received from customer 3,14,56,582.23 Add: TDS refund received 4,48,050.00 Add: Salary Cheque returned 7,818.00 Add: Credit against OD limit received 8,99,000.00 Add: Cash Deposited in bank 3,92,500.00 Add: UL received back 3,14,850.00 Total Credits in Bank 3,35,18,800.23 5. However, neither of the two authorities had taken any cognizance of the submissions of the assessee and had instead made additions to the income of the assessee on the basis of the non-existent facts and by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny, without following the proper procedure. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders passed were bad in law and the additions made by them deserve to be vacated. The ld. AR also filed a petition requesting for permission to file additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had engaged one Sh. Mahendra Singh, Advocate for handling the matters related to assessment proceedings and was under the impression that the said counsel was making due compliances to the notices being issued by the ld. AO during assessment proceedings. It was later that he came to know ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 7 that the said compliances had not been made and for this reason, the documents could not be submitted during assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that for the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee had obtained consultation from C.A. Mukesh Agarwal and since the said C.A. did not advise the filing of these evidences, accordingly they could not be filed. However, it was necessary for the assessee to file these evidences in order to prove the submissions made by him before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it was prayed that these additional evidences may kindly be admitted. The additional evidences that were submitted were as under:- “(i) Annexure-I, being copy of TDS refund ledger in the assessee's books of accounts showing the TDS refunds received during the previous year. (ii) Annexure-II, being copy of statement of OD A/c No. 2170257000255 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2018 held by the assessee in Canara Bank in the name of M/s Gurudin Bindu Kumar Enterprises, the proprietorship concern of the assessee. (iii) Annexure-III, being copy of ledger a/c of Akhilesh Kumar (nephew of the assessee) for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 showing entries of unsecured loan paid by the assessee during the previous year and part repayments received during the previous year. (iv) Annexure-IV, being copy of bank book of Canara Bank Current A/c No. 2170201000579 for the year ended 31.03.2017. (v) Annexure-V, being copy of cash book for the year ended 31.03.2017. (vi) Annexure-VI, being sworn affidavit of the assessee duly notarized.” 6. The ld. AR also pointed out that even otherwise the order of the ld. AO which had been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not maintainable, because it had been passed in violation of CBDT’s Instruction No. F No.225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28.11.2018, regarding the scope of enquiry in limited scrutiny cases selected under CASS cycles of 2017 and 2018. Ld. AR drew our attention to paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the said instruction wherein it had been stated that unlike CASS 2015-16 cycles, where consideration of any additional issue could lead to the conversion of the case to, “complete scrutiny” by following the procedure as laid down in Instruction No.5/2016 dated 14.07.2016, “limited scrutiny” cases of CASS 2017 and 2018 cycles ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 8 could not be taken up for complete scrutiny, unless there was credible material or information provided by any Law Enforcement/Intelligence/Regulatory Authority or Agency regarding tax evasion by the assessee. The ld. AR pointed out that the case had been selected for limited scrutiny for the purposes of examining cash deposits during the year and in the absence of any information regarding tax evasion from any agency regarding tax evasion, that the ld. AO was not empowered to convert this case into one of complete scrutiny so as to examine the credits in the assessee’s bank account. The ld. AR submitted that even if the AO had such information, he was still duty bound to follow the procedure laid down in the said instruction and take the prior administrative approval of the concerned CIT / Pr. CIT, before expanding the scope of scrutiny to cover all the credits in her bank account. However, in the present case, despite it being clarified to the AO that the total amount of cash deposits during the year were only Rs.3,92,500/-, comprising of two deposits of Rs. 2,20,000/- on 8.07.2016 and Rs. 1,72,500/- on 10.11.2016, a fact which had been acknowledged by the AO in his order, the AO had expanded the scope of his enquiry to cover all the credits in the said bank account and here too come up with an imaginary figure that had no basis. It was, therefore submitted that since the AO lacked the mandate to assess the issues upon which he had based his addition, the same was even otherwise bad in law and the order deserved to be quashed on this ground alone. Without prejudice to the above, he submitted that since the credits in the said bank account stood explained as a result of the reconciliation statement submitted before the ld. CIT(A), there was never any occasion for the ld. CIT(A) to reject the assessee’s appeal without calling for further clarifications / documents in this regard. For the proposition, the order of the ld. AO was bad in law. The ld. AR placed reliance upon the following judicial decisions which he furnished in the form of a paper book. i. PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. (2023) 155 taxman.com 580 (Calcutta). ii. Vudatha Vani Rao vs. ITO, (2024) 159 taxman.com 1694 (Vishakhapatna-Trib) ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 9 iii. Srimanta Kumar Shit vs. ACIT (2024) 1911/Kol/2024. iv. Atul Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT ITA No.3384/Del/2019 (Delhi-Trib). v. Sanjay Kumar Bejwani vs. ITO in ITA No.2741/Del/2022. vi. Rahul Bajpai vs. DCIT (2025) 171 taxman.com 500 (Raipur-Trib). vii. Dahila Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2025) 173 taxman.com 268 (Delhi-Trib). The ld. AR reiterated that it had consistently been held that unless the proper procedure had been followed in converting cases of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, as the actions of the ld. AO were violative of CBDT instructions, the additions made in such assessments could not be held to be valid. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders of the AO deserved to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the information on the insight portal would constitute information as envisaged in para 2 and 3 of the CBDT instruction quoted by the ld. AR. It was submitted that the said information showed that a sum of Rs.3,35,18,807/- had been credited in cash to the bank of the assessee during the period of demonetization and therefore, the ld. AO was well within his rights to examine all the credits to determine whether they were explained or not. It was further submitted that the ld. AO had asked the assessee to furnish copies of cash book, daily cash summary, nature and source of cash deposited during the entire period, month-wise details of gross receipts for three years and month-wise cash deposits for two years but the assessee had neither furnished any response or any documents as called for by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO after noticing that there was a contradiction between the total turnover of the assessee and the total credits in the bank account had added back the difference. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was also justified in rejecting the re-conciliation statement filed by the assessee as no evidences have been filed in support thereof. ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 10 8. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts are not in dispute. That the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific purpose of examining, “cash deposit during the year”. While the initial information with the ld. AO suggested that the cash deposited in Canara Bank A/c No.2170201000579 was Rs.3,35,18,807/-, after examination of the said bank account, the ld. AO had satisfied himself that the total amount of cash deposited into the said account was only Rs. 3,92,500/-. Therefore, within the terms of the mandate given to him by virtue of the grounds on which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny, he could not have gone beyond examination of the sources of cash deposits to start enquiring into the entire credits of the assessee in the said bank account, without specific permission from the Pr. CIT and that too only if he had specific information from any agency regarding tax evasion by the assessee. We reject the argument of the ld. Sr. DR that information contained on the insight portal constitutes information of tax evasion passed on by any agency or authority. Information placed on the insight portal is only information as uploaded by the SFT filer. It does not constitute information regarding tax evasion by an assessee. Even otherwise, the ld. AO was obliged to take the specific permission of the Pr. CIT before expanding the scope of enquiry to cover the credits in the assessee’s bank account, before taking any action in this regard. The failure to do so is a clear violation of the instruction dated 28.11.2018. As highlighted by the ld. AR, various Courts have held that where the issue decided by the ld. AO was not part of the grounds on which the case was selected for limited scrutiny, since the AO had not abided by the CBDT instructions and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction, such allowances could not be sustained. In the case of PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court held that since carry forward of losses was not an issue for which the case was picked for limited scrutiny, the AO’s decision to reject the setting off and carry forward of losses without following the CBDT instructions could not be sustained. Similarly, in the case of Vudatha Vani Rao vs. ITO (supra), ITAT Vishakhapatnam ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 11 Bench held that since cash deposits before demonetization were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny (wherein only deposits during demonetization period were required to be examined) the additions made on account of deposits made before demonetization period could not be sustained. In the case of Srimanta Kumar Shit vs. ACIT (supra), the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata Bench has held that where the ld. AO did not follow the procedure contemplated in CBDT Instruction No.5 of 2016 for converting a limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny, he could not make additions on any point other than that for which the case was selected for scrutiny and any such additions were not sustainable. In the case of Atul Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT (supra), the ITAT held that there was no valid basis for the AO to enquire into other issues while conducting a limited scrutiny, without taking the mandatory permission from the ld. PCIT and since the AO had not done so, the addition made by him was in violation of CBDT instructions and therefore beyond his jurisdiction. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Bejwani vs. ITO (supra), the Delhi ‘SMC’ Bench held that any addition on an issue beyond which the case had been selected for scrutiny was void since it was beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. AO. The ITAT Raipur Bench in the case of Rahul Bajpai vs. DCIT (supra) has held that the ld. AO could not have ventured into an issue that did not form the basis for taking up the case for limited scrutiny assessment, without getting said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny and therefore, the addition made by him was liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. In the case of Dahila Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Delhi Bench of the ITAT held that since the ld. AO had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and made additions on issues which were not part of the reasons for limited scrutiny, the same was to be set aside. Considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the light of all these judicial pronouncements, it is quite clear that the case was only selected for scrutiny to examine the cash deposits made during the year. Since, the ld. AO has himself recorded in his order that the cash deposits did not exceed Rs.3,92,500/-, he could not have expanded the scope of his enquiry and made consequent additions ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 12 without taking the approval of the ld. PCIT after pointing out the specific information regarding tax evasion that had been received by him from some other agency. As he did not do so, he was in violation of Instruction No.225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28.11.2018 and therefore, the addition made by him is bad in law. The addition is accordingly deleted. 9. Even otherwise, it is observed that the assessee furnished an explanation by way of reconciliation of all the credits in his bank account before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has neither offered any comments on the same nor refuted as inaccurate any part of this reconciliation, before rejecting the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that cash deposits have been made through RTGS, proper evidences with books of accounts have not been filed to explain the source of cash deposit, no comparative figure of RTGS deposits have been given in the last three years and address and PAN numbers of customers have not been given therefore the cash deposits made during the time of demonetization remained unexplained. With these arguments he has confirmed an addition of Rs Rs.1,14,43,309/-, being the difference between amounts credited to the Bank account and the turnover of the assessee, whereas where the cash deposits during demonetization were only Rs.1,72,500/-. It therefore appears that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts of the particular case. Hence, his order is unsustainable on this account also. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 10.07.2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:10/07/2025 Sh ITA No.304/LKW/2023 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 13 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR , ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S. "