AO held that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the so called buyers of the silver . accordingly made the addition . CIT (A) deleted the addition , which was affirmed by the Tribunal . Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the AO had rightly rejected the books of account of both the assessees and the additions made by him were to be restored. The conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer that there was no silver at all and the story of purchase and sale of silver was entirely concocted was based on the evidence before him. The sales of over Rs. 30 crores in one assessee’s case and Rs. 40 crores in the other assessee’s case being put forth entirely as “cash sales” had no valid basis in the books of account. It was obligatory on the assessees to satisfactorily account for the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the transactions of the so-called providers of such cash to each of them in such huge sums. This was not forthcoming and the Assessing Officer had rightly disregarded the accounts of both the assessees under section 145(3) . The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that the books of account maintained by each assessee deserved to be rejected was not perverse. The discussion of the evidence on record both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal was cryptic and without adverting properly to the facts referred to by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal had erred in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in holding that section 145(3) was not applicable. (AY . 1998-99)