JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department. 2. While admitting the appeal this Court on 26.09.2012 framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether, the tribunal was justified in law in admitting new plea contrary to the facts on record and contrary to the Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and to based his findings thereon while sustaining the addition of Rs. 12.50 lacs, can be said to be legal one?" 3. However, on an application moved on 08.09.2017, We have added one more question on 20.9.2017 which reads as under:- "Whether addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the IT Act, and deleted by the CIT(A), can be controverted under section 69A by the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,50 lacs, irrespective of the fact that the appellant is not maintaining books of accounts and source of income is pension and interest only, such conclusion is proper?" 4. The Tribunal in its order dated 2.3.2012 has observed as under:- "2. The facts of the case are that at the very outset, it was observed by the Bench that Revenue''s appeal is delayed by a period of 28 days, having been filed on 0108-2011 as against the communication date (of the order appealed against) of 0205-2011. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer (''CIT'') vide order dated 27-07-2011, issued in response to the defect notice issued by the Registry of the Tribunal, clarified that the appellate order by the ld. CIT(A) was in fact communicated to his office only on 03- 06-2011, so that limitation expires on 0108-2011. Our 2 attention was drawn thereto by the ld. DR, in view which we condone the delay. Not only are we are inclined to give due credence to the statement by a responsible officer, the reason stated is only understandable inasmuch as the impugned order is itself dated 02/5/2011, so that the specification of its receipt date in F/36 as ''02/5/2011'' appears to be by way of a mistake. The hearing of the appeal was accordingly proceeded with, with the assessee having preferred to furnish written submissions, placed on record. 3.1 The appeal raises three issues. The hearing of the appeal was accordingly proceeded with, with the assessee having preferred to furnish written submissions, placed on record. 3.1 The appeal raises three issues. We shall deal with the principal issue, raised per the third ground, first, the other two even otherwise getting subsumed therein. The same relates to the restriction of the addition in the sum of Rs. 15,51,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit by the assessee in his savings bank account with Union Bank of India, to Rs. 81,000/-. The details of the transactions in the said bank account are as under: Date Particulars Cheq No. Withdrawals Deposits Balance 04.06.2007 B/F - - - 0,00 04.06.2007 By cash (Account Open) 1,000.00 1,000,00 Cr. 11.06.2007 By cash (Amount brought from Ahmadabad) 6,01,000,00 Cr. 12.06.2007 By cash (Amount brought from Ahmadabad) 8,01,000,00 Cr. 12.07.2007 By Cash 297491 3,00,000,00 - 5,01,000,00 Cr. 14.07.2007 By Cash 297492 20,000,00 - 4,81,000,00 Cr 19.07.2007 By Cash (Out of cash withdrawn on 12.07.2007) 7,81,000,00 Cr. 27.07.2007 By cash (Out of cash withdrawn on 14.07.2007 and cash in hand) 8,81,000,00 Cr. 03.08.2007 By cash (amount brought from Ahmadabad) 12,31,000,00 Cr. 15,51,000,00 The assessee''s explanation before the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was that an amount of Rs. 11.50 lacs stands sourced from sixty three (63) persons (creditors) residing at Ahmadabad, in support of which their confirmations, containing their addresses as well as PAN, were submitted. It would at this stage be relevant to narrate the background facts of the case. The assessee made a verbal Agreement for the sale of his residential house at Sri Nagar Road, Ajmer for Rs. 45.00 lacs, receiving a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs from one, Uma Khandelwal, vide cheque deposited in his bank account with ICICI Bank (erstwhile ''Bank of Rajasthan'') on 17/1/2007. The property had been sold to four buyers i.e., three others besides Uma Khandelwal, to be conveyed thereto vide separate (registered) sale deeds to be executed within 3 months, i.e., by end April, 2007. In anticipation of the receipt of the sale proceeds by the said date, the assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential property at Bhagchand Soni Nagar, Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer for a sum of Rs. 11.01 lacs on 21-05-2007, paying a token amount of Rs. 21,101/-, again, by cheque drawn on his bank account with ICICI Bank. The balance payment of Rs. 11.01 lacs on 21-05-2007, paying a token amount of Rs. 21,101/-, again, by cheque drawn on his bank account with ICICI Bank. The balance payment of Rs. 10.80 lacs was to be made on or before 21-07-2007. As the sale proceeds for the Sri Nagar Road property were not forthcoming, the assessee resorted to cash borrowings, lest the purchase agreement for the house property (at Bhagchand Soni Nagar, Ajmer) be cancelled. It is claimed that a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs, collected from various persons at Ahmadabad, was received by him at Ajmer on 10-06-2007 and, accordingly, deposited in his newly opened bank account with Union Bank of India, Sri Nagar Road, Ajmer Branch on 11-06-2007 (Rs. 6.00 lacs) and 12-062007 (Rs. 2.00 lacs). So however, the assessee did not draw upon the said funds; his conscious not allowing him to do so, and raised bank loans against FDRs of self and wife. The registry of the Bhagchand Soni Nagar property was executed on 1307-2007 by availing bank loan for the requisite sum of Rs. 10.80 lacs, i.e., Rs. 2.0 lacs (on 20-06- 2007) and Rs. 8.80 lacs (on 11-07- 2007). Further, Rs. 3.20 lacs were withdrawn from the bank on 12- 07-2007 (Rs. 3.0 lacs) and 14-07-2007 (Rs. 0.20 lacs). This sum is stated to have been withdrawn for paying back the creditors at Ahmadabad; the assessee having since discharged the payment obligation under the purchased agreement. However, as the same could not be remitted to Ahmadabad due to safety reasons, the amount was deposited back in the bank account at Rs. 3.00 lacs (on 19-07-2007) and Rs. 1.00 lac (on 27-07- 2007), i.e., at a total of Rs. 4.0 lacs (as against Rs. 3.20 lacs withdrawn). The excess amount of Rs. 80,000/- (i.e., Rs. 4.0 lacs minus Rs. 3.20 lacs) was stated to be out of the cash balance with him. Further, the assessee''s son had raised more funds at Ahmadabad, i.e., Rs. 3.50 lacs, which were received in Ajmer on 02-08-2007 and again deposited in the Union Bank savings bank account on 03-08-2007. 3.2 The AO, however, considered the entire cash deposited in the Union Bank of India account (Rs. 15.50 lacs) as not satisfactorily explained. Firstly, the creditors/loaners were not produced. 3.50 lacs, which were received in Ajmer on 02-08-2007 and again deposited in the Union Bank savings bank account on 03-08-2007. 3.2 The AO, however, considered the entire cash deposited in the Union Bank of India account (Rs. 15.50 lacs) as not satisfactorily explained. Firstly, the creditors/loaners were not produced. As regards the documents furnished in support, the returns in most cases were for A.Y. 2008-09 and, thus, not relevant, even as in some cases no returns were filed. In fact, the balance-sheets, filed along with in most cases, did not reflect the loan in some cases. The capacity of the creditors was thus not proved. The entire cash collected was from Ahmadabad, and deposited in a newly opened account with another bank. None of the confirmations stated of the cash loans having been repaid, which was claimed to be so during the same financial year. In any case, mere filing of confirmations would not prove the credits. The claim of cash deposit of Rs. 4.0 lacs in bank account in July''07 as being essentially a redeposit of funds withdrawn was also considered by him as an unsubstantiated plea. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the AO having not found any alternate application of the funds withdrawn from the bank (Rs. 3.20 lacs), recycling of the same by way of deposit in the same bank account subsequently could not be doubted. The assessee had though not substantiated his claim of the deposit of Rs. 80,000/- out of his own sources. As regards, the loan raised from Ahmedabad (Rs. 11.50 lacs), i.e., at Rs. 8.00 lacs on 10-06-2007 and Rs. 3.50 lacs on 02-08-2007, the assessee had submitted the necessary documents, including the income-tax returns as well as balance-sheets of the creditors. As such, the onus casts on the assessee had been met. The assessee could not possibly be required to establish the source of the source, i.e., the source of the funds with the creditors. Reliance was placed on decision by the Hon''ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Jangid vs. ACIT, 217 CTR 354 . The AO could not draw an adverse inference out of non-production of the creditors, and which he (AO) could do on his own, drawing strength from the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) . The AO could not draw an adverse inference out of non-production of the creditors, and which he (AO) could do on his own, drawing strength from the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) . Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal." 5. The Tribunal while considering the matter in para 5.1 to 5.8, observed as under:-5.1 The first thing that we observe is that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A), i.e., Rs. 81,000/-, includes Rs. 1,000/- deposited cash for the opening of the new (savings bank) account with Union Bank of India on 04-06-2007. The ld. CIT(A) having deleted two additions, for a total of Rs. 97,800/-, on the basis that the assessee could reasonably be expected to maintain some cash balance, as well as receipt of Rs. 4 lacs (stated to be received cash as advance on 27/4/2007 in respect of the sale of Sri Nagar Road property), the addition of Rs. 1000/- is thus inconsistent therewith. The assessee, however, has not disputed the sustained addition of Rs. 81,000/-, which is principally by non-accepting its claim for having a cash balance, particularly considering that a reasonable sum had already been considered as so by the ld. CIT(A). Notably, for both the said additions, aggregating to Rs. 97,800/-, the assessee had not pleaded for having a cash balance with him, ascribing its source to the cash receipt of Rs. 4.00 lacs from the four lady purchasers of his Sri Nagar Road, Ajmer property. 5.2 Coming to the impugned addition of Rs. 14.70 lacs, we observe the assessee''s explanation as fantastic by all counts, bordering on the bizarre. Firstly, the need to raise funds, which constitutes the essence of the assessee''s explanation, is itself not understood. The assessee, by own admission, had secured funds to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs as advance against the sale of his Sri Nagar Road property by 27/4/2007. He furnishes no balance-sheet or cash flow statement, so as to be able to know his financial position, the amount as well as the manner of 6 utilization of funds at his disposal, including those raised, and which may be parked in different banks/bank accounts. Even assuming the assessee to have no funds whatsoever of his own (as on that date), it only implies that liquid funds for a maximum of Rs. Even assuming the assessee to have no funds whatsoever of his own (as on that date), it only implies that liquid funds for a maximum of Rs. 2.84 lacs were to be arranged for; the property under purchase costing Rs. 11.84 lacs, including registration cost of Rs. 0.83 lacs, and by 21/7/2007, i.e., the date by which the purchase had to be concluded. We say so as the assessee ascribes even the source of Rs. 15,000/- deposited cash in his bank account (with ICICI Bank) on 21/5/2007 to the cash advance stated to be received from the buyers of his Sri Nagar Road property on 27/4/2007, so that he admittedly had no funds of his own as on that date. Also, the assessee admittedly has funds in near liquid securities in the form of bank FDRs, which could easily be monetized to meet the liquidity required, as indeed was done by him. This is all the more so as the need for funds was admittedly only temporary, neutralize as it would on the receipt of the balance Rs. 36 lacs (45 lacs - 9 lacs) against the contracted sale of the Sri Nagar Road residence; rather would not have at all arisen if the said sale transaction had matured in time, i.e., as originally envisaged (end April, 2007). Further, this is assuming that no extension of time for the purchase was possible, and for which no evidence has been led; the assessee''s own house having been sold to the same persons and at the same price as agreed for even though the transaction came to be completed much later (16/8/2007). In other words, the need to raise funds (Rs. 11.50 lacs), and particularly in the manner done (from as many as 63 outstation parties), is completely incomprehensible in view of: (a) . the need for funds actually required for the stated purpose (at a maximum of Rs. 2.84 lacs); (b) . the access to funds in the form of near liquidity admittedly available in the form of bank FDRs; (c) . the need for funds actually required for the stated purpose (at a maximum of Rs. 2.84 lacs); (b) . the access to funds in the form of near liquidity admittedly available in the form of bank FDRs; (c) . the fact that the necessary funds could be easily tapped from the buyers of his residential house, who were allowed excess time by the assessee for completing the real estate transaction (wherein the time lines are to be, as a general rule, strictly honoured, even as the assessee seeks to qua his purchase transaction) -and by months - so that he could under the circumstances have easily bargained for the amount required, being only a fraction of what was due (Rs. 36 lacs); and (d). the admittedly temporary nature of the need (for funds). As against such practically nil or at best a feeble and temporary need for funds, which could easily be got financed from any bank or financial institution, as by way of a loan against property or bank deposits, the assessee runs amuck, seeking funds from all and sundry, even if it amounts to raising the same from outstation parties, and for minor amounts, using the good offices of his son, ostensibly stationed at Ahmadabad. The time and energy required to be expended in raising funds in such minor sums, even if the requirement for funds stated to be raised was established, would make the transaction/s impractical and improbable. In fact, as his son has such a large number of good contacts, who would come to rescue at the time of need, it only implies that the son has a good financial and social standing, and a sound reputation, apart from the assessee enjoying excellent relations with his son. As such, the necessary funds could - if at all - be easily raised from one or a couple of parties. Why, rather, we wonder, could not then the son have himself chipped in the minor sum required. We wonder if this is done to beat the law; the same proscribing acceptance or repayment of loan/deposit in cash where exceeding the threshold limit of Rs. 20,000/-. Though normally a matter left to the discretion and wisdom of the assessee, the said consideration follows directly from the stated and admitted circumstances, given the assessee''s explanation. We wonder if this is done to beat the law; the same proscribing acceptance or repayment of loan/deposit in cash where exceeding the threshold limit of Rs. 20,000/-. Though normally a matter left to the discretion and wisdom of the assessee, the said consideration follows directly from the stated and admitted circumstances, given the assessee''s explanation. 5.3 The second query that arises directly, again to no answer, is as regards the mode of acceptance of the funds. Why were the funds accepted in cash? Acceptance of loans in cash, which is a risky proposition by any standards, is particularly so in the instant case considering that the funds are to be admittedly transmitted to another station, involving time and risk, if not also cost. That is, the stated course represents another act that no reasonable man of ordinary prudence and average intelligence exercising diligence would ordinarily undertake. What makes this particularly quizzical is that firstly the funds lent are ostensibly accounted funds, given from their apparently explained sources by the creditors, who are largely income-tax assessees 8 and, two, that there was no immediate need for funds; the first instalment arriving at Ajmer on 10/6/2007, i.e., much prior to the limitation date of 21/7/2007, and would have in fact been accepted only prior to its transmission, while the second tranche of Rs. 3.50 lacs (received in Ajmer on 03/8/2007) was admittedly not even required to be accepted; the purchase transaction having been already concluded on 13/7/2007. Rather, even if accepted, was not required to be transmitted to Ajmer, and could have easily been returned back to the creditors at Ahmadabad itself. Further, the transmission, even if the loans came to be accepted in cash, could easily be effected through deposit of cash in the assessee''s bank account (with Union Bank of India - assuming the deposit to be necessarily made in that account - or ICICI Bank) at Ahmadabad; the bank accounts, even though maintained by the home branch, are not strictly branch-specific, so that they could be operated and accessed from any station where the bank has a branch. Now, it is certainly not the case that either Union Bank of India or ICICI Bank has no branch at Ahmadabad, a much bigger place than Ajmer itself. Now, it is certainly not the case that either Union Bank of India or ICICI Bank has no branch at Ahmadabad, a much bigger place than Ajmer itself. In fact, the funds could also have been deposited in the son''s account at Ahmadabad, and transmitted to Ajmer through the banking channel. Not only this, the funds are, to equal amazement, also repaid in cash, attracting the same (and equal) risk. In fact, while the collected funds could be placed in a single account of the assessee-borrower, the repayment involves distribution of cash to several creditors, so that repayment vide a negotiable instrument or banking channel is definitely much more convenient and desirable from all angles, including safety - the factor which admittedly constrained the assessee from remitting the funds withdrawn from bank to Ahmadabad. To our mind, this (safety) benefit alone outweighs by far any other consideration in favour of non-cash transmission, as safety has many dimensions to it and, apart from the potential loss of funds, also entails risk to life and property of those involved in transmission. There is in fact no comparison whatsoever, both practically and conceptually, between the two modes of transfer of funds. Just consider this: in one stroke the money gets deposited in the bank account of the creditor in a matter of minutes at the minimum or a couple of days at the maximum (depending on manner chosen), and at no risk and almost nil cost. It obviates the need to obtain confirmation of receipt of money individually from each creditor, but for which the assessee cannot claim to have discharged his obligation of repayment, a sine qua non for any debtor. 9 Finally, needless to add, no evidence in respect of transmission of cash from Ahmadabad to Ajmer or vice versa stands adduced by the assessee before any authority. 5.4 Another equally intriguing aspect of the assessee''s case, as made out, is that no ''receipts'' were admittedly obtained from the creditors upon repayment of loans. Why? In fact, there is no contemporaneous material to evidence either the receipt of funds from, or their repayment to, the creditors, which is uncomprehensible indeed, given that both the receipt as well as repayment of loans is in cash. Why? In fact, there is no contemporaneous material to evidence either the receipt of funds from, or their repayment to, the creditors, which is uncomprehensible indeed, given that both the receipt as well as repayment of loans is in cash. Any creditor would insist on being issued a receipt, if not execution of a pronote, witnessed independently and also containing the terms of the loan, including as to repayment. Similarly, any debtor would insist on being issued a receipt or an endorsement on the pronote while discharging his obligation under a loan agreement/arrangement, which becomes the primary document evidencing the transaction. There is no explanation, again, for the admitted absence of such a basic and primary document. The assessee claims to have repaid the loans during the financial year of receipt itself, i.e., f.y. 2007-08, the relevant previous year. Clearly, such receipts, if maintained, could have been produced in the first instance itself. Also, why did not, as also noted by the AO, then, the confirmations by the creditors contain information on this vital aspect, i.e., of the liability having been since discharged. Further still, in the admitted absence of a basic document as a receipt or a pronote, what is the basis for the issue of such incomplete confirmations? 5.5 The next aspect which is the vital to the validity and, thus, the acceptance of the assessee''s explanation, is the non-production of the creditors before the AO for his examination, as specifically called for by him. This is for the simple reason that many a query, as some posed by us hereinbefore while discussing the assessee''s case, as well as that may similarly appear hereinafter, concerning the factual aspects of the assessee''s explanation, in substantiation and verification thereof, that may arise in the mind of the AO, could best be answered in the format of an extempore interview with the creditor himself, who only can authentically reply queries in relation to his personal affairs, viz. What is the personal relationship with the debtor (as the creditors do not appear to be in the financing trade); what is the immediate source of the monies lent; proof thereof (this is toward validation of the stated source and not of the source of the 10 source); why did he prefer to extend the loan in cash; what was the document/s executed, if any; to whom was the cash handed; who, if any, witnessed the transaction; its terms, including as to security, etc., replies to which, including the materials supplied in support as well as the replies to any further queries that may concomitantly and spontaneously arise, are extremely relevant in arriving at a satisfaction or otherwise by the AO with the assessee''s explanation as to the nature and source of the impugned deposit of funds; in other words, about the truth of the matter. This requirement is nonnegotiable, and assumes prime significance as the law envisages ''satisfaction'' or otherwise only of the AO, so that the purview of an appellate authority like us is to examine whether the non-satisfaction expressed by the AO is sustainable in law, i.e., is the explanation furnished by the assessee one which should satisfy a man of ordinary prudence, acting reasonably and judicially, given the normal course of events, as well that of human conduct. The impugned order is largely silent on this aspect, except for stating that the creditors could have been summoned by the AO. It is trite law that the onus to prove the credits is on the assessee; the very argument by the ld. CIT(A) being a tacit admission thereof, even as undoubtedly the assessing authority could definitely facilitate the same by exercising his powers as vested in a civil court for enforcing attendance, where the creditors are not responding to the assessee in this regard, upon being communicated this fact by the assessee, along with a request for the same. However, there is no such communication or request to the AO by the assessee in the present case. However, there is no such communication or request to the AO by the assessee in the present case. Quite on the contrary, in response to the AO''s specific requisition for production of the creditors for verification on 24-10-2010, the assessee chooses to remain silent, not even indicating of any hardship or noncooperation in its respect from the creditors, if so, being faced by him and, as if surreptiously, vide letter dated 23-12-2010, i.e., two months later and barely a few days prior to the setting in of the time limitation for assessment (31/12/2010), given not directly to the AO but only in the Dak, claims that it was not possible to produce the creditors, being inhabitants of Ahmadabad, at such a short notice. Further, that the creditors were cooperating with the assessee is apparent from the fact that they furnished not only their confirmations but also income-tax returns and financial statements, which would only be at assessee''s behest, to whom they lend monies ostensibly to bail him out of a difficult situation. Also, there was no request before the AO to call for, at his choice, some of the large number (63) of creditors, facilitating the process of validation without presumably compromising on the 11 quality of the verification, even as admittedly each credit constitutes a separate case, warranting a specific adjudication. In fact, even before the first appellate authority, the assessee does not stake any claim for being afforded an opportunity for the production of the creditors, having been ostensibly constrained for want of time before the AO, and qua which the latter had drawn an adverse inference per the assessment framed and under challenge by him (assessee). Under the circumstances, the shifting of the onus by the ld. CIT(A) on the AO; the onus under law being clearly on the assessee, whose conduct casts a considerable shadow on his bona fides in the matter, by relying on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not valid in law. Attention in this regard is also invited to the decisions in the case of Kusum Sharma vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 303 ITR 381 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghdoot Village Products (P.) Ltd., 212 CTR (All) 484. Attention in this regard is also invited to the decisions in the case of Kusum Sharma vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 303 ITR 381 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghdoot Village Products (P.) Ltd., 212 CTR (All) 484. 5.6 The explanation and the narrative furnished by the assessee in fact bears several other anomalies, more and more of which tumble out as we continue to subject it to scrutiny or closer examination in its various aspects. We say so as it may not be correct or proper to discard or reject an explanation only on the basis of a single incongruity; any person may be prone to an unusual behaviour at times, with the same person himself behaving differently under similar situations at different times. The first instalment of the bank loan (through which purchase transaction was eventually financed) was availed on 20-06-2007, so that the decision to do so, i.e., to go for the bank loan for the purpose was taken even prior thereto. Secondly, why was a loan availed when the assessee had no immediate intention to mature the purchase, time for which was available up to 21- 07-2007; the balance amount of bank loan being availed only on 11-07-2007, and only understandably so, considering that acquisition was completed on 13-07- 2007. This is as loan entails interest and, besides, keeping cash in hand is always a risky proposition, so that nobody would do so, particularly where it does not serve any purpose. The assessee states of having withdrawn cash from Union Bank of India only after being released of the burden of registration of the conveyance deed qua the purchase, while the fact of the matter is that same was transacted on 13- 072007, and the cash was in the main withdrawn prior thereto on 12-07-2007. A person focused on concluding the purchase which has burdened him for so long, would hardly be bothered to meet the part payment to Ahmadabad on the eve of and on the verge of closing the purchase transaction. The same, rather, points to the amount having 12 been withdrawn for or toward the said purchase or for some other purpose. A person focused on concluding the purchase which has burdened him for so long, would hardly be bothered to meet the part payment to Ahmadabad on the eve of and on the verge of closing the purchase transaction. The same, rather, points to the amount having 12 been withdrawn for or toward the said purchase or for some other purpose. Yes, there could exceptions to this, as (say) where some reliable person is proceeding to Ahmadabad on that date itself (12- 07-2007), and has agreed to carry cash (up to that amount) with him, or where (say) one more creditors are urgently pressing for funds, so that arrangements were made to transmit the amount borrowed from him/them. But, then, we cannot proceed on any hypothesis, and it is for the assessee to supply the facts, as well as substantiate the same, being only a part of his explanation. Not only is the cash not transmitted on that date (12-07-2007), the assessee ''realizes'' that he had to remit Rs. 20,000/- more, and which he withdraws from the bank only on 14-07-2007. This is a perplexing. Nobody would keep the remission pending - which clearly shows that there was no urgency for the same - for want of Rs. 20,000/-, for which again which no basis has been disclosed. If at all, it indicates that the assessee did not have Rs. 20,000/- with him or was short by that amount, for whatever purpose the same may have been required to be withdrawn. The question of the assessee having Rs. 80,000/- in cash for depositing in bank, for which again no basis has been furnished, thus, does not arise. This is also inconsistent with the assessee''s stand of having opened up a (separate) bank account with the Union Bank of India for parking his borrowings from Ahmadabad separately. Surprisingly, again, no cash is remitted even on or after 14-07-2007, i.e., after completing the shortfall in the amount that had to be purportedly transferred, stating safety as the reason. Not only that, the programme for transfer of funds, which represented only a fraction of the total amount to be remitted to Ahmadabad, without disclosing any basis therefor, was not deferred by one or two days, as for firming up the safety arrangements, but was totally dropped, and cash ''re-deposited'' in bank. Not only that, the programme for transfer of funds, which represented only a fraction of the total amount to be remitted to Ahmadabad, without disclosing any basis therefor, was not deferred by one or two days, as for firming up the safety arrangements, but was totally dropped, and cash ''re-deposited'' in bank. We have already explained that the bank transfer is conceptually, technically as well as practically far superior to the cash mode; rather, a practical necessity, given the distance as well as the number of persons involved, for non-resort to which no reason has been advanced by the assessee at any stage. The string of unexplained events does not stop here. In spite of the purchase transaction having been concluded, and the assessee now admittedly engaged or involved in the exercise or project, if we may call it so, of transfer of funds back to Ahmadabad, the collection spree goes unabated, with the assessee moping up another Rs. 3.50 lacs, depositing the same in his bank account on 03-08-2007, i.e., after claiming the same to be received at Ajmer on 02- 08-2007. We are afraid, but the same can under the circumstances be only termed as ludicrous. Finally, we 13 cannot help but noting that though the assessee claims to have repaid the loans during the same year, i.e., the year of receipt, it specifies no date/s, nor even the source of the same, leave alone producing any material in support. In this regard it would be relevant to state that the copy of the bank account with Union Bank of India, where the borrowed funds have been deposited, as provided on record extends only up to 03-08-2007, i.e., the date of the last deposit. 5.7 Without doubt, the entire explanation (as discussed at paras 5.1 to 5.6 above) rings untrue and concocted, is beyond comprehension and bounds of reasonability, inconsistent with normal human conduct and behaviour, apart from being totally unsubstantiated. It is these reasons that persuaded us to state at the beginning of our narrative that the explanation furnished is fantastic and non-acceptable. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in approving the AO''s action for being not satisfied with the assessee''s explanation. It is these reasons that persuaded us to state at the beginning of our narrative that the explanation furnished is fantastic and non-acceptable. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in approving the AO''s action for being not satisfied with the assessee''s explanation. The law in the matter is trite, and for which we may refer to case laws by the hon''ble apex court, which has time and again explained that the receipt of money of which the assessee is a beneficiary is itself a prima facie evidence against him, who has to satisfactorily explain the same, i.e., render an explanation as to its nature and source, which is proper, reasonable and acceptable, even as a finding as to non-satisfaction therewith is to be rendered on the basis of proper appreciation of the material and other attending circumstances available on record; application of mind being a sine qua non for forming an opinion. Also, that it is the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole that has to be looked into, without attaching any specific weight to any particular fact in isolation. We may refer to some of the case laws, clarifying the well settled law in the matter, as under:- Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala & Others, 291 ITR 278 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Others. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Though rendered largely in the context of section 68, while the provision applicable in the instant case is section 69A, the law is para materia as, in either case, the assessee has to offer a 14 satisfactory explanation about the nature of the source of impugned credit or debit (money, bullion, jewellery, any valuable article, i.e., assets), as the case may be. 5.8 Further on, we are unable to appreciate the case laws relied on by the assessee, viz. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. 5.8 Further on, we are unable to appreciate the case laws relied on by the assessee, viz. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd., 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd (1994), 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) . Both the decisions, in ratio, confirm the trite law in the matter, i.e., that the onus to establish the credit on the parameters of identity and capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, is on the assessee, and only where it by satisfactory proof establishes so, that the onus gets shifted to the Revenue. Further, mere production of confirmatory letters or even the fact that the transaction is routed through the banking channel, does not by itself prove the loan, making a non-genuine transaction, genuine. In the instant case the genuineness of the transactions stands thoroughly impugned, so that we do not consider the credits/deposits in the assessee''s bank account with Union Bank of India as representing his liability or borrowings. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to consider the aspect of the creditworthiness of the lenders, even as there is no contemporaneous or corroborative material evidencing the transactions. Coming to the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Jangid vs. ACIT (supra), we again find no statement of law therein, toward which case law is legion, contradictory or inconsistent with the stand taken by the Revenue; the question of satisfaction or otherwise, on the basis of the explanation furnished including the surrounding facts, as borne by the material on record, being even otherwise a question of fact. The only ratio of the said decision is that the assessee cannot be called upon to establish the source of a source. We have already clarified that the assessee has made no case to prove the genuineness of the transactions, which are un-evidenced and de hors the probabilities of human conduct. Further, the question of Revenue doubting the source of the source does not arise, with the creditors, even though called for, having not been produced. The cited decision, if at all, validates the Revenue''s case; the hon''ble court upholding the addition under section 68 despite the production of affidavit from the creditor, under circumstances of non-production of the creditor coupled with non-furnishing of his correct address. The cited decision, if at all, validates the Revenue''s case; the hon''ble court upholding the addition under section 68 despite the production of affidavit from the creditor, under circumstances of non-production of the creditor coupled with non-furnishing of his correct address. An opportunity to the Revenue to examine the assessee or the creditor vis-a-vis the explanation and the materials furnished is again a sine qua non for any reliance to be placed thereon." 6. In our considered opinion the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. 7. Hence the issue is answered in favour of department and against the assessee. 8. The appeal stands dismissed.