The assessee had deposited Rs. 180.53 crores post-demonetisation between November 9, 2016 and December 30, 2016. The assessee had disclosed Rs.30 crores under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 150.53 crores as undisclosed income of the assessee under S. 68 of the Act.On appeal, the CIT(A)  observed that out of Rs.113.03 crores held by the assessee on November 8, 2016, only Rs. 13.99 crores were deposited in the bank account on November 8, 2016 (actually deposited on November 10, 2016) and the balance of Rs. 99.04 crores was not deposited on the said date. He negated the contention of the assesse that on the date of demonitisation, the assessee had only Rs. 13.99 crores in cash since the assessee could not give an explanation for having such a large sum in cash and has showed unaccounted income of Rs. 99.04 crores as cash sales. Therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 73.13 crores.

However, the Tribunal held that the AO  was not vested with unfettered power to reject any explanation of the assesse on the basis of surmises and conjecture. He must form satisfactory opinion around the explanation provided by the assessee the additions made were liable to be quashed since the AO  acted unreasonably and capriciously in rejecting the genuine explanations offered by the assessee solely with the aim of imposing large tax liabilities upon the assessee. (AY.2012-13 to 2017-18)