JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Dr. Satish Chandra J.-The present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated May 14, 2001, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 5645/Del/1994 for assessment year 198788. assessee has mentioned six substantial questions of law but all are leading to addition of Rs. 3.90 lakhs, which was upheld by Tribunal. brief facts of case are that on October 16, 1986, assessee was travelling from Delhi to Bareilly in Fiat Car No. UTI 2455, when he reached near Rampur octorie post, car was intercepted by customs authorities. On next day, customs authorities have recorded statement of driver and assessee. In statement, both have stated that assessee had gone to Delhi to sell gold and seized amount is consideration of said sale. But it was observed by customs authority, vide order dated December 18, 1987, that: "It is not established that money is sale proceeds of smuggled gold. Even presumption of Radha Raman dealing with gold does not arise any where." Later, assessee has taken different version by stating that he had gone Delhi to purchase plot but deal was not finalised so he had to return to Bareilly along with cash which was taken from family members and slip of each family member was attached on bundle of currency notes. But Assessing Officer was not satisfied so he made addition of Rs. 3.90 lakhs. However, first appellate authority has deleted said addition by observing that assessee was involved in gold business, so profit might have been earned. Finally, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has made addition of Rs. 40,000 by deleting remaining amount. Being not satisfied both parties have filed appeals before Tribunal who has restored addition of Rs. 3.90 lakhs by setting aside order passed by first appellate authority. Being aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal. With this background, we have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused material available on record. Parties have reiterated what they have stated before lower authorities. From record, it appears that assessee has claimed that Rs. 3.90 lakhs was taken from family members to purchase plot in Delhi but deal was not finalised so, assessee was returning to Bareilly along with cash. detail of cash taken by assessee was given which is as under: Rs. 1 Smt. Sushila Devi (mother) 54,000 2 Smt. Meera Agarwal (sister) 40,000 3 Km. Kiran Agarwal (sister) 1,04,000 4 Sri Radha Raman Agarwal (individual) 23,000 5 -do- (HUF) 13,000 6 Master Ashish Agarwal (son) 22,000 7 Sri Hari Shankar (father) (individual) 21,000 8 -do- (HUF) 93,000 9 Sri Vinay Kumar (brother) 20,000 Total 3,90,000 From record, it also appears that all creditors have shown entries in their books of account, few of them have given meagre amount for which no entry was made out. order of customs authorities was not before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who has wrongly observed that assessee was engaged in business of gold, especially when customs authorities have observed (supra) that assessee was not involved in business of gold then statement given by assessee as well as driver cannot be relied upon. Regarding creditworthiness of creditors, it appears that either amount was meagre or same was shown in books of account. No attempt was made by Department to verify/examine creditors. identity of creditors has been established. From family members, loan for petty amount can be taken in cash. Hence, it appears that creditors were genuine. It may be mentioned that in case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), hon'ble apex court has observed that Revenue will have to examine source of income of alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. In instant case, no effort was made by Department to examine alleged creditors. burden lay on Revenue. Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT v. N. P. Garodia [2009] 310 ITR 62 (P&H) has observed that in such cases summons must be issued to creditors. In view of above and by considering totality of facts and circumstances of case, we are of view that when credit was taken from family members and amount is petty or has been shown in books of account then there was no occasion to make addition. Therefore, we set aside all orders of lower authorities and delete addition of Rs. 3.90 lakhs. assessee will get relief, accordingly. answer to all substantial question is in favour of assessee. In result, appeal is allowed. *** Radha Raman Agrawal v. Income-tax Officer