ORDER : J.K. Ranka, J. Instant IT Appeal under section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 has been preferred by the appellant-Revenue assailing order dated 14th Nov.2014, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur. It relates to asst. yr. 2008-09. 2. Brief facts noticed for disposal of the instant appeal are that the respondent-assessee derives income by way of activities of construction, builders and developers. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loans from various persons and desired the assessee to place on record confirmations with addresses, permanent account number, bank account details and copies of returns filed by the person giving loans. The confirmations as desired by the AO was submitted. Thereafter, the AO, being not satisfied, issued summons under section 131 to ten persons and their statements were recorded. The AO was not satisfied with the three cash credits in the name of Shri Banshilal son of Shri Lal Ram, village Asarpura, Tehsil Sanganer who deposited an amount of Rs. 25 lac with the assessee; Shri Kana Ram Agarwal who deposited an amount of Rs. 45 lac and Shri Kailash Chaudhary who deposited an amount of Rs. 20 lac and after recording of the statements, the AO came to the conclusion that genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash credit was not proved though identity was established and accordingly intended to add the said amount by invoking provisions of section 68. The assessee came with the plea that the entire credits are genuine, identity has been established so also when the amount is advanced through account payee cheques and the said creditors are assessed to income-tax since long, the creditworthiness and genuineness is also proved. However, the AO, noticing some discrepancies in the statements recorded, made an addition of Rs. 90 lac relating to three creditors. 3. The said assessment order was assailed before the CIT(A) who, after analysing the material on record including statements recorded under section 131, found that the ingredients namely, identity, capacity and genuineness in all the three cash creditors and thus deleted the entire addition. 4. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order impugned upheld order of CIT(A) by holding that the source has been duly explained and all the three ingredients are duly proved. 5. 4. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order impugned upheld order of CIT(A) by holding that the source has been duly explained and all the three ingredients are duly proved. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue contended that the AO was not satisfied with the manner in which huge amounts were advanced by the three named creditors. Though they may be existing income-tax assessee but the AO noticed discrepancies in the statements recorded under section 131 as the said three creditors were unable to prove the source from which the money was advanced to the assessee. In one of the cases, he submitted that amount was advanced out of sale of agricultural land by Kailash Chaudhary but he did not place on record even the basic documents namely; registration of agricultural land sold by Kailash Choudhary. Therefore, the AO was well justified in holding that the said cash credits are not genuine. He further contended that merely being income-tax assessee does not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 68 when the assessee has to prove that the amount was advanced genuinely and burden is on assessee. once credit is found recorded in his books. A taxpayer simply proves identity and nothing more which is not at all proper and Revenue can always doubt such credits. He thus contended that substantial questions of law arise out of order of the Tribunal. 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the order impugned and the other material placed on record. 7. In our view, both the appellate authorities, after taking note of the facts and going through the statements of three cash creditors, have come to a definite finding that not only the identity was established but the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors were well proved. 8. Before the CIT(A), the matter was reiterated by filing confirmations which contained permanent account number, complete addresses, copy of the IT returns, copy for computation of return of income, copy of bank statement and not only that all the three cash having creditors appeared before the AO on a notice been received under section 131. Not only that, it appears that affidavit was also filed of the three cash creditors. Not only that, it appears that affidavit was also filed of the three cash creditors. The C1T(A) on the material having been furnished by the assessee before it, further granted opportunity to the AO under r. 46A by way of comments from learned AO and remand report was received by the CIT(A). which was taken into consideration. It was reiterated that (1) as far as Banshilal is concerned, he had received an amount of Rs. 25 lac from M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. by cheque on 22nd June, 2007 and that the said amount was duly disclosed in the audited balance sheet by M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. and even the assessee had placed the IT return, audited balance sheet of M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. along with bank statement about all transactions by account payee cheque; (2) in so far as Kana Ram Agarwal is concerned, it was noticed that he had received certain amount of Rs. 50 lac and 2 lac out of which an amount of Rs. 45 lac was advanced to assessee. Bank statement of Kana Ram Agarwal was produced and it was reiterated that all the transactions are by cheque and there was no doubt that the entire transaction was by account payee cheque and it is not the case of the Revenue that cash was introduced in the account of Kana Ram Agarwal prior to advancing money to the assessee and then the amount was advanced to the assessee and (3) in so far as the case of Kailash Choudhary is concerned, in this case also, the CIT(A) was satisfied on an explanation that in the return of income, Kailash Choudhary had shown sale of four properties including agricultural land, totalling Rs. 40,39,998/- and report was received by the CIT(A) which was taken into consideration. It was reiterated that (1) as far as Banshilal is concerned, he had received an amount of Rs. 25 lac from M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. by cheque on 22nd June, 2007 and that the said amount was duly disclosed in the audited balance sheet by M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. and even the assessee had placed the IT return, audited balance sheet of M/s Kinjal Colonizers (P) Ltd. along with bank statement about all transactions by account payee cheque; (2) insofar as Kana Ram Agarwal is concerned, it was noticed that he had received certain amount of Rs. 50 lac and 2 lac out of which an amount of Rs. 45 lac was advanced to assessee. Bank statement of Kana Ram Agarwal was produced and it was reiterated that all the transactions are by cheque and there was no doubt that the entire transaction was by account payee cheque and it is not the case of the Revenue that cash was introduced in the account of Kana Ram Agarwal prior to advancing money to the assessee and then the amount was advanced to the assessee and (3) in so far as the case of Kailash Choudhary is concerned, in this case also, the CIT(A) was satisfied on an explanation that in the return of income, Kailash Choudhary had shown sale of four properties including agricultural land, totalling Rs. 40,39,998/- and such sale consideration was duly shown in the IT return which was placed on record even before the AO and before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also found that merely because the sale deed was not filed, there is no reason for disbelieving the said cash credits. The CIT(A) on the additional fact/material brought on record, desired through remand report the comments of the AO and the CIT(A), after having gone through the remand report, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajshree Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 176 CTR (Raj) 300 : (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj) and Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 220 CTR (Raj) 622 : (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199. has held that the assessee has been able to satisfy the three ingredients of identity, capacity and genuineness and we are in conformity with the ultimate finding expressed by the Tribunal and it is based essentially on finding of fact based on material on record.. 9. This Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 267 CTR (Raj) 396 : (2014) 101 DTR (Raj) 377 : (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj) had an occasion to consider the identical fact relating to cash credit under section 68 and took note of the fact that deposit of cash and immediate transfer of cheque or clearance of the cheque within a day or two casts a doubt as the transaction appears to be somewhat doubtful but suspicion however strong it may be, is not sufficient. In the instant case, we have noticed that all the three cash creditors not only placed on personally in pursuance to summons under section 131 and gave their version of deposit of money with the assessee. 10. In our view, though the AO was free to conduct an enquiry about the genuineness of the transactions which has taken place between the assessee and the cash creditors and may go into the transaction whether it was genuine or not, however, it will not necessarily mean that even if some discrepancies have been noticed in the statements or otherwise after some lapse of time that it becomes the income of the assessee from undisclosed source unless of course there is strong evidence direct or substantial to show that the amount which has been advanced by the cash creditor to the assessee actually was received from the assessee. In our view, the facts on record clearly prove that the assessee did prove from where he has received the credits and once the assessee disclosed identity of a person who has advanced money, the amount is advanced by bank transactions, the cash creditor is assessed to income-tax, then the burden laid down on the assessee is duly discharged and onus then shifts on the AO. 11. The apex Court in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 138 : (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as under : "In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the 'alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue, The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could, be arrived at, no question of law as such arises. " 12. This Court again in the case of Kanhaialal Jangid v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 217 CTR (Raj) 354 : (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 38 held as under : "The burden does not go beyond to put the assessee, under ab obligation to further prove that wherefrom the creditor has got or procured the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee. The fact that the explanation furnished by the creditor about the source from where he produced the money to be deposited or advanced to the assessee, is not relevant for the purposes of rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee and make additions of such deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources by invoking section 68 of the IT Act, unless it can be shown by the Department that the source of such money comes from the assessee himself or such source could be traced to the assessee itself. " 13. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts noticed herein above, it is an admitted fact that all the cash creditors have; not only placed on record the entire material but have also affirmed in their examination that they had advanced money to the assessee from their own respective bank accounts and when even the AO finds only minor discrepancies in the statements recorded but as found that the money came from the respective bank accounts of the creditors, then we are in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no evidence as alleged by the AO that the money actually belonged to none but the assessee himself. The said finding if any is based on mere suspicion. 14. There is no evidence as alleged by the AO that the money actually belonged to none but the assessee himself. The said finding if any is based on mere suspicion. 14. In view of what we have noticed hereinbefore, the finding by the learned Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the material on record after appreciation of evidence and in our view, no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference of this Court. We find no perversity in the order impugned. 15. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.