JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this case. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th June, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was legally correct in dismissing the revenue's appeal merely relying on the Against the judgment dated 9.6.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur [Received by the Commissioner on 25.7.2003] in ITA No. 431/JDPR/1998 for Assessment Year 1994-95. affidavits furnished by the assessee company when the same were not backed up with the evidence of the income and immediate availability of the funds with the creditors?" 4. The substance of the matter is that for the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer found that the additional unsecured loan of 5 Rs.8,78,000/- has been entered in the books of account for the previous year relating to assessment year 1994-95. As per the details furnished by the assessee in respect of these additional unsecured loans, it was evealed that Rs.4,39,000/- were obtained from the Directors and their relative and remaining Rs.4,39,000/- were obtained from other parties. 5. The assessee has produced seven persons the Assessing Officer in person in response to order dated 16.12.96, who had advanced unsecured loans of Rs.20,000/- each totalling Rs.1,40,000/-, they were relatives of the Directors. 6. On examination by the Assessing Officer, these seven persons stated that they derived this income from agricultural sources. However, no documentary proof about the holding of their land by these creditors was produced before the Assessing Officer not these creditors were assessed to income tax. Yet on the basis of their personal appearance, the Income Tax Officer accepted the genuineness of the unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/-. 7. In respect of Rs. 4,40,000/- credited in the names of 19 other persons detailed in the assessment order, their affidavits were filed alongwith the land records of the agricultural land held by the deponents. Yet on the basis of their personal appearance, the Income Tax Officer accepted the genuineness of the unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/-. 7. In respect of Rs. 4,40,000/- credited in the names of 19 other persons detailed in the assessment order, their affidavits were filed alongwith the land records of the agricultural land held by the deponents. In the affidavits, it was averred that the money advanced by the deponenets to the assessee was their agricultural income and for earning agricultural income, the supportive evidence of land records showing the lands in the name of the creditors was also produced. However, the Assessing Officer did not rely on all the affidavits along with the land records because the deponents were not personally produced before him. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the amount of Rs.4,40,000/- was included in the income of the assessee by invoking Section deeming it to be income of the assessee from the undisclosed sources for the assessment year in question. 9. This appeal relates to this addition, which has been deleted by the CIT (Appeals) in appeal, whose order has been affirmed by the Tribunal. For remaining Rs.2,98,000/- neither the affidavits have been produced nor persons were produced. This amount was also added in the income of the assessee and has been sustained in appeal. About this there is no dispute in the appeal. 10. The CIT (Appeals) accepted the genuineness of the unsecured loans amounting to Rs.4,40,000/- which was supported by the affidavits of 19 creditors alongwith the land records incorporating the earning of income from agricultural means by the deponents and the said order of the CIT (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the assessee has not produced the deponents in person, the affidavits could not be relied on and adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the assessee as has been drawn by the Assessing Officer. In not accepting this position, the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated in regard to its finding about genuineness of the cash credit to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/-. 12. We are unable to sustain this contention. In not accepting this position, the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated in regard to its finding about genuineness of the cash credit to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/-. 12. We are unable to sustain this contention. What evidence would be sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under section 68 ordinarily does not give rise to substantial question of law unless it can be said that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal and perverse. However, mere sufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground on putting the finding into the can of perversity. 13. In the present case, apparently the Assessing Officer in rejecting the affidavits has ignored the available material in the form of and records in support of the statements containea in the affidavits by the respective deponents. 14. The Tribunal as well as CIT (Appeals) in the totality of circumstances found that evidence produced in the form of affidavits alongwith the land records was sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under section 68 and to hold the amount of unsecured loans covered in these affidavits to be genuine. This, in our opinion, is a finding of fact, which does not stand vitiated on any of the grounds on which finding of fact can be callenged as a question of law. 15. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costsAppeal Dismissed. *******