Cash was advanced to certain agriculturists for purchase of their land. Since the agreement did not fructify, the advances were received back. The AO considered such receipt as not explained and added the same as cash credits.  The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by considering the evidence on record, including the confirmations of the agriculturists and holding that the entire sum of money was explained. ITAT held that only a part of the sum was explained and confirmed the addition of the balance portion of the sum. On appeal, the High Court held that when the CIT(A) had considered the detailed evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the entire sum was explained, the Tribunal, if it was not agreeable with the same, should have brought sufficient material on record. Having not done so, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed and the entire addition was deleted. (AY. 2010-11)