Held, that the order under appeal was a result of mere conjectures and surmises and not sustainable in the eyes of law and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was to be deleted. The accounts of the creditors which appeared in the ledger were produced before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was well within his powers to ask for verification of the transactions from the parties. This, however, was not done, though the assessee had specifically stated that the deposits were on account of advances of cash by the customers, who were direct customers, and only a few of them were dealers, for the supply of goods to them. The Assessing Officer had himself admitted in the assessment order that the identity of some persons had been provided by the assessee. It had also not been disputed that the goods dealt in by the assessee were of fluctuating rates. It would be a normal business practice for customers to book goods in advance, so as to secure supply of the goods at the rates prevailing on a particular date. some of the persons had furnished confirmations, admitted having advanced the money to the assessee for the supply of the goods. The accounts, in these cases, were settled by supplying the goods, or otherwise. The books, bills and vouchers were produced before the Assessing Officer and were test checked. No defect therein had been pointed by the auditors and the Assessing Officer had admitted that the goods were supplied to the customers, against which, the advances were received, and there was only a small amount of advance which remained outstanding and adjusted at the end of the year. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had no money in hand to make the deposits in its bank accounts and deposits were made out of the advances received from the customers. No attempt had been made to establish the source of the money to make the deposits, without refuting the receipts of the amounts as trade advances. (AY .2012-13)