neither the Ld. CIT, DR as well as the AO were able to controvert the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The AO in his report dated 05-02-2020 furnished before us reiterated his findings made in the order impugned and claimed that all the companies identified in the cash and billing trail are paper/shell companies, which showed that they had no existence at all. As regards the alleged cash trails, we find that the AO himself had traced the source of the monies credited to the assessee’s account. From the charts extracted at Pages 78 to 83 of assessment order, we note that the AO himself was not only able to identify the names of the payer companies but was also able to identify and establish the bank accounts of the source as well as source of source from which payments were received by the assessee. Both the source as well as the source of source was within the banking system only and there was no cash deposit found. It is true that there were cash deposits at the end of the 5th or 6th layer of the transaction, but as rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) there was no conclusive evidence to show that the ultimate source of the amount received by the assessee was the cash deposit made in the accounts of the proprietary concerns whose identity was also not established by the AO. Even with regard to the billing trails, it is noted that the AO waunable to bring to our attention, any factual material which corroborated his finding that bogus payments made by these listed companies had come back to the assessee in the form of accommodation entries or that any cash was returned to them. In support of such an allegation no tangible material or evidence such as copies of the Income Tax assessments of the payer companies were furnished. Instead we note that the AO simply made a sweeping remark that some of the entities enlisted in the billing trail were paper/shell companies. In our considered opinion such general statement making sweeping allegation was not sufficient to justify the humongous addition while framing the addition u/s 153A of the Act, which necessarily had to be based on some tangible incriminating material found in the course ofsearch. 32. For the reasons set out above, we therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed