ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by the appellant-revenue by raising following substantial questions of law, arising from the order dated 29th June, 2022 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.374/RJT/2017 for A.Y. 2012- 13. (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, overlooking the fact that the said decision was granted on the issue of re- opening proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not on the merit of the case? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A), overlooking the fact that during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assesse has failed to discharge its primary onus cast upon the assesse by not submitting detail of his clients? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.224,53,23,993/- ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proving of cash deposits in bank account? (iv) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that the onus was on the assessee to prove the source of cash in his accounts as laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Bhagwandas D. Vachhani (56 taxmann.com 284) and Sarwan Kumar Sharma (49 taxmann.com 101) which onus the assesse has failed to discharge? 2. The assessee who is doing business of shroff and derives income from commission, filed return of income declaring income of Rs.28,790/-. 2.1 The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the information that there was cash deposit of Rs.224,53,23,993/- in sixteen bank accounts of the assessee during the year under consideration, issued notice to the assessee to explain the same. 2.2 In response to the notice, the assessee submitted that he being in the business of shroff, money collected from the customers or on behalf of the customers and that the cash deposited did not belong to him. 2.3 The Assessing Officer, however, did not find the explanation satisfactory and made addition of the aforesaid amount under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2.3 The Assessing Officer, however, did not find the explanation satisfactory and made addition of the aforesaid amount under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A) contending that identical addition sought to be made in the A.Y. 2008-09 by reopening the case under Section 147 of the Act which was quashed by this Court and that reopening for the year under consideration subsequently done by the Assessing Officer with respect to the cash deposit in other bank accounts of the asessee was dropped by following the decision of this Court. The CIT (A), considering such submissions, deleted the addition observing as under. “8. While making assessment u/s.143(3), the A.O. made additions of Rs.224.53 crore for the deposits made by the appellant in 16 bank accounts as mentioned in para 3 of the assessment order. Later on the A.O. reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09, as deposits in the same bank accounts were found pertaining to the period relevant to A.Y.2008-09 also. The appellant filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad against the reopening of the proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad quashed the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act against the appellant. The operative paras of the aforesaid order is reproduced below. 9. Against the above order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, SLP has not been approved by the CBDT, New Delhi as informed by the A.O, vide letter dated 03.01.2017. Thus, the order of the Hon'ble High Court becomes final in this case. 9.1 Although the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as reproduced above is regarding re-opening of the proceedings in appellant's case for A.Y.2008-09, but the facts of the case & issue involved in all the assessment years is same. Along with the discussion over reopening of the proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court's order clearly contains findings that the appellant is engaged in the business of shroff and cheque discounting. Other finding is that all the transactions in the bank accounts have been reflected in the regular books of accounts of the appellant. There is no undisclosed bank account or undisclosed transaction in these bank accounts. It has also been mentioned that the appellant charged only commission for the facilities of cheque discounting provided to its clients. Other finding is that all the transactions in the bank accounts have been reflected in the regular books of accounts of the appellant. There is no undisclosed bank account or undisclosed transaction in these bank accounts. It has also been mentioned that the appellant charged only commission for the facilities of cheque discounting provided to its clients. With these findings, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. 10. Thereafter, the appellant's case for A.Y. 2012-13 i.e. year under consideration has been reopened for the reason that more bank accounts were found by the A.O. The A.O. stated that there were total 35 bank accounts [including 16 bank accounts considered while passing order u/s.143(3)] having deposits of Rs.578.15 crore (including 224.53 adjudicated by A.O. in assessment order u/s.143(3). 11. During the re-opened assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, the appellant submitted details of all beneficiaries, who deposited cheques/cash with the appellant and were given cheques/cash as per their requirement and therefore, the A.O. dropped the re-assessment proceedings. These facts have been confirmed by the A.O. in para 4 of the remand report submitted. From the discussion above, it is clear that the appellant is engaged in the business of shroff and the bank accounts & transactions shown in these bank accounts are reflected in the regular books of accounts of the appellant. The appellant charged only commission on these transactions, which has been shown in the regular books of accounts. There is nothing which can be said as undisclosed or unexplained. This finding has been given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while deciding writ petition filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2008-09. On the basis of these findings, the A.O. dropped the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act. Looking to these facts, the additions made by the A.O. are not found justified, as the A.O. himself has dropped re-assessment proceedings in which the transaction under consideration were part of the total transactions. The A.O. got detail of all the beneficiaries and necessary action will be initiated in those cases as per provisions of the Act. Keeping in view these facts, the additions made in the hands of the appellant are not found justified, hence deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs.224,53,52,783/. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 2.5 Being aggrieved by the order passed by CIT (A), appellant-revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Keeping in view these facts, the additions made in the hands of the appellant are not found justified, hence deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs.224,53,52,783/. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 2.5 Being aggrieved by the order passed by CIT (A), appellant-revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the finding of facts recorded by the CIT (A) to the effect that reopening resorted to by the Assessing Officer for the year on account of cash deposit in some other bank accounts subsequent to passing of the assessment order was dropped taking note of the order of this Court. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal observing as under. “9. Therefore, it is clear that the issue of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee has been examined exhaustively at various levels and no merit has been found in the contention of the Revenue that it represented any undisclosed income of the assessee, noting the fact that the assessee was into business of Shroff and earned only commission on the monetary transactions carried out by it; the cash deposits representing money belonging to his customers. Even the AO in reassessment proceedings for the impugned year was convinced that the cash deposits in another bank account of the assessee related to the assessees money lending business. Therefore there is no reason to uphold the original assessment order of the same AO holding them to be unexplained when subsequently he was convinced that the assessee being in money lending business the cash deposits related to the same.” 3. In view of concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both CIT (A) and the Tribunal and more particularly when the fact is not in dispute that the assessee was engaged in the business of Shroff, no merit was found in the contention of the Assessing Officer to add the entire cash deposit at the hands of the assessee as income, as the assessee only earned income of commission in monetary transactions carried out by him. Even in the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was convinced that the cash deposited in other bank accounts related to money lending business of the assessee. 4. In view of the above finding of facts, we are of the opinion that no question of law muchless any substantial question of law arise for consideration. The appeal accordingly fails and is accordingly dismissed.