Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the  Assessing Officer did not offer any examination of these documents and did not mention even a single adverse point in the financials of these companies. His whole exercise was based upon his claim that section 133(6) notice was returned unserved. It was not at all the case that these companies did not have permanent account numbers or that they did not file Income-tax returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) had mentioned that the Assessing Officer had issued summons under section 131 of the Act to the directors of the company but no such mention was there in the order of the Assessing Officer. From the examination of the financials, balance-sheet and bank statement, it was seen that the transactions were through banking channels and these companies had sufficient financial reserves to provide the credits/loans to the assessee. In these circumstances, when all the details were provided and no adverse feature was noted therein, the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon it. The authorities had based the adverse orders only by making general observation and repeating that the assessee did not produce the directors of these companies. The orders of authorities were to be set aside. Since the addition under section 68 of the Act was to be deleted, the addition for commission did not survive.(AY.2008-09)