Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that  the assessee had explained the nature and source of the investments, that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the name of the assessee was withdrawn even prior to the notice being served upon him, that a justifiable explanation was given that the nephew had got his signatures, that the assessee being an agriculturist and only having a small holding of land apparently could not be in possession of huge amounts, which were also in foreign currency. Nothing as such was produced on record that it was transferred from India where he was doing some business. It was not the case of the Revenue that the amounts were credited from his income while doing business abroad. The assessee was not based abroad for such long periods to generate that kind of income.  The deletion of additions is affirmed.(AY.2006-07, 2007-08)