Unsecured loans from 15 persons had been taken during the year 2015-16. Notice under section 133(6) was issued to all the parties. Only two parties confirmed the transactions but refused to accept that they provided any unsecured loan to the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the loans as income under section 68. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially sustained the addition. On appeals by the assessee and Department, the Tribunal held that it is for the AO to pursue a creditor particularly once the assessee had duly furnished the complete particulars of the person from whom monies have been received by the assessee. In the absence of such a burden having been discharged, the Assessing Officer could not have mechanically proceeded to make the addition. Non-compliance with the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to all the entities giving unsecured loan cannot be a basis to make addition under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the unsecured loans received by the assessee had been fully substantiated by substantial documentary evidence, copy of the audited financial statement, acknowledgment of return, confirmation from the lender, bank statement of the lender. Such sum could not in law or on fact be held to be unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. No material had been led by the Assessing Officer to even allege that such amount emanated from the coffers of the assessee. The lenders were corporate entities duly assessed to tax and had made unsecured loans through banking channels, which fact had neither been denied nor rebutted in the assessment order, which was also duly confirmed by each of the lender. The assessee had furnished complete details and evidence to discharge the burden in respect of unsecured loan. Therefore, addition was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal followed Earthmetal Electrical (P) Ltd. v. CIT (CA No. 6181 of 2010 dated July 30, 2010) (SC) and CIT v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). (AY.  2015-16)