Held, that the objection of the assessee regarding the Assessing Officer having exceeded his jurisdiction was misplaced as the assessee was required to explain the source of the cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer had restricted the scrutiny to verifying the cash deposits in the bank account. Hence, the objection of the assessee that the Assessing Officer exceeded the jurisdiction was ill-founded and rejected. Therefore, the cash deposits were to be treated as unexplained. From the bank statement furnished by the assessee for the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, there were deposits and withdrawals from the bank account of the assessee. The authorities ought to have given a clear finding regarding withdrawals made by the assessee during the year under consideration.  The addition of the entire deposits as unexplained was not justified. The Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit of   telescoping, and if the benefit of telescoping was allowed the entire addition would not survive. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. (AY.2015-16).