Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that simply because notices could not be served upon the sub-contractor, the transactions could not be held non-genuine. If the Assessing Officer had disbelieved that the sub-contractor had executed the contract, he could have disbelieved the payment made to it and held that it was the assessee, who had executed the contract and worked out the profit accordingly. But when the entire amount received by the assessee was towards the payment for the contract, there was no question of considering any part thereof as unexplained cash credit.(AY.2007 -08)