Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ;the assesee has produced details like copies of permanent account number cards, returns, balance-sheets with all the annexure and bank accounts before the Assessing Officer, that two of the creditors not only appeared before the Assessing Officer, but had also admitted giving loan and that there was nothing suspicious or doubtful in the version of those persons . Accordingly the deletion of addition was held to be justified . As regards transportation charges paid to various parties , the tax was deducted at source, payments through account payee cheques, proper addresses and confirmation of account with permanent account numbers and gross receipts from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on account of supply of vehicles in the financial year was furnished, therefore merely because the parties were not physically present before the Assessing Officer, such an addition could not have been made . Accordingly the deletion of addition was held to be justified ( AY. 2007 -08)
CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta. (2018) 407 ITR 492 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta ( 2018) 406 ITR 494 ( SC)
S. 68 : Cash credits -Loan – Produced details like copies of permanent account number cards, returns, balance-sheets with all the annexure and bank accounts before the Assessing Officer, that two of the creditors not only appeared before the Assessing Officer, but had also admitted giving loan and that there was nothing suspicious or doubtful in the version of those persons -Deletion of addition was held to be justified – Transportation charges – tax deducted at source, payments through account payee cheques, proper addresses and confirmation of account with permanent account numbers and gross receipts from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on account of supply of vehicles in the financial year- Merely because the parties were not physically present before the Assessing Officer, such an addition could not have been made – Deletion of addition was held to be justified . [ S.133(6), 260A ]