Held that  the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of account including the cashbook, sales and purchases, nor regarding any stock deficit. The Assessing Officer made additions towards cash deposits purely on suspicion. Lack of response from customers could not be a reason to take an adverse view against the assessee when the assessee was able to furnish sufficient evidence to prove the source of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had committed a fundamental mistake in examining cash receipts claimed to have been received by the assessee towards the gold scheme in light of section 68. Moreover, the assessee need not submit confirmation from customers to the Assessing Officer because the law did not mandate collecting the permanent account number of the buyers if sale value of jewellery did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of rule 114B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Compliance with the know your customer norms was mandatory under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 only with effect from May 4, 2023 and not earlier. Furnishing of the names and addresses of persons from whom it had received trade advances was satisfactory discharge of the onus cast upon the assessee. Tribunal also held that   the assessee had sufficient cash balance according to its cash book, which was backed by cash receipts recorded in the books of account before the date of demonetisation. Further, cash receipts were substantiated with sales made to various buyers before the date of demonetisation as supported by sales bills. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. (AY.2017-18