https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780986 ITAT held that the disputed accommodation-entry additions assessed against the taxpayer pertained to the taxpayer's HUF, not the individual, and directed their deletion. The AO had acknowledged-after bank verification under section 133(6)-that the bank account in question belonged to the HUF's proprietorship concern and that the bank had incorrectly linked the individual's PAN instead of the HUF's PAN. The department failed to controvert these facts at hearing; accordingly, the additions for all four years were held to belong to the HUF and relief was granted to the taxpayer. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780986 ITAT held that the disputed accommodation-entry additions assessed against the taxpayer pertained to the taxpayer's HUF, not the individual, and directed their deletion. The AO had acknowledged-after bank verification under section 133(6)-that the bank account in question belonged to the HUF's proprietorship concern and that the bank had incorrectly linked the individual's PAN instead of the HUF's PAN. The department failed to controvert these facts at hearing; accordingly, the additions for all four years were held to belong to the HUF and relief was granted to the taxpayer. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780986