Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v. CIT(A) (ITAT Mumbai)

Court: Mumbai Tribunal
Head Notes:

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Advocate-Seizure of cash-Cash withdrawal from Bank-Professional fees received cash-Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed-The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account-Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source-Addition was deleted. [S. 44AB , 131(IA)]
The assessee is a practicing advocate who maintained regular books of account which is audited as per section. 44AB of the Act . The assessee was carrying cash of Rs 16 lakhs while travelling to Delhi in a matter before the Honourable Supreme Court. In the Airport the cash was seized from the assessee. The statement of the assessee was taken and the assessee explained the source of the cash and also reason for carrying the cash with him. The Assessing Officer held that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory, hence made addition under section 69A of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee has disclosed the professional receipts, the books of accounts are audited and the amounts are disclosed in the books of account, explained the source hence additions cannot be made under section 69A of the Act. Addition was deleted. (ITA No. 163/Mum/2023 dt 12-05-2023)(AY. 2019-20)
Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v. CIT(A) (Mum.)( Trib.) www.itatonline.org.
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Amit Shukla, (JM) & Hon’ble Ms. Padmavathy S., (AM)]

Law:
Section(s): 69A
Counsel(s): Shri Dipesh Poptani, C. A.
Dowload Pdf File Click here to download the file in pdf format
Uploaded By itatonline
Date of upload: August 17, 2023

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*