The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in gold and jewellery. The  assessee  has deposited cash sales in the bank account. The  Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 to 50 persons out of which 46 summons issued were returned by postal authorities citing addressee cannot be located or no such person or no  such address at the above address. Out of three persons two of them denied having any transactions with the assessee and one person confirmed that he has paid the advance. As the substantial number of summons were returned back by the postal authorities by citing ‘no such person’ or ‘ insufficient address  the Assessing Officer treated total cash sales as unexplained cash credit and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.  On appeal CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal held that  the assessee furnished the names and address of the customers from whom it has received cash for sale of jewellery. Assessee need not obtain confirmation because the law does not mandate collecting PAN details of the persons if the sale value of jewellery does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs as per r. 114B-Thus, the observation of the AO that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained cash receipts is unwarranted and devoid of merits.The  assessee was having sufficient cash balance as per cash book maintained for the relevant period. Cash receipts from various persons have been substantiated with sales made to them before the date of demonetization. AO never disputed the sales declared by the assessee nor pointed out any discrepancy in purchases or stock-in-trade held in the business of the assessee before the date of demonetization. There is no abnormal deviation in the sales declared for the month of November, 2016 when compared to the earlier periods. Accordingly  the explanation of the assessee that it received advances from various customers towards sale of jewellery and subsequently the advances have been converted into sales, appears to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal also held that  as per the details furnished by the assessee like bank statements and cash book, assessee made sufficient withdrawals from the very same bank accounts before the date of demonetization which was recorded in its books of accounts. Cash balance maintained by the assessee as per books of accounts as on 8th Nov., 2016 was much higher than the amount of cash deposited in the bank accounts during the demonetization period. AO erred in treating the said deposits as unexplained cash credits under S.  68 of the Act. Oder of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed.  Followed, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), Lakshmi Rice Mills v.CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat)(HC), CIT v. Agson Global (P) Ltd (2022) 325 CTR 1 (Delhi)(HC),  distinguished, Sumati Dayal v CIT  1995) 214 ITR 801,   125 CTR 124, 80 Taxman 89   CIT v. Dugra Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), Khale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC)  (AY. 2017-18)