SATBIR MAHATO,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), HOOGHLY

At the time of hearing, the assessee only pressed the issue raised on merit which is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹14,06,250/- as against the addition of ₹1,50,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 18.05.2016, declaring the total income of ₹18,600/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the assessee deposited huge cash into his bank account. Accordingly, the statutory notices were issued along with questionnaire, which were duly served upon the assessee. The

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) after following the decision of the various co-ordinate Benches partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition to the tune of ₹1,35,93,750/- and sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹14,06,250/- at 0.75% of total accommodation entries provided. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the part confirmation of the order of the ld. Assessing Officer.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly the cash was deposited in the assessee’s bank account in ICICI bank account which belonged

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.