TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred to disbelieve the confirmation of Appellants' client, Mr. Sagun Naik having deposited cash of Rs. 6,00,000/- with Appellant for his matter in Supreme Court. 3. Ld. CIT(A) cannot demand explanation of source of the amount received from Mr. Sagun Naik. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has disbelieved receipt of Rs. 16,90,000/- during July, 2018 in comparison to total receipts of Rs. 50,40,000/- during FY 2018-19 only on the basis of surmises. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred to disbelieve the possession of Cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- in July 2018 in cash summary & raised objections of not transferring it digitally only due to assumptions and surmises. 6. Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the help of Advocate on records of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Mr. Sudhanshu Choudhari. There was a requirement by above mentioned Advocate on record that the assessee shall pay a fees of Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash to him to engage the Senior Counsel to argue the cases of the assessee client. The assessee further submitted that the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- included fees of Rs. 10,00,000/- paid by his client Mr. Biren Limbachiya through various cheques from time to time and Rs. 6,00,000/- fees were paid by Shri Sagun Naik of which Rs. 25,000/- Is through cheque and Rs. 5,75,000/- by cash on various dates. The assessee submitted before the authorities that all these transactions were properly recorded in his books of accounts regularly maintaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the cash received by the assessee till 16.07.2018 and that the amount of Rs. 16,00,000 found in possession of the assessee, is an amount other than the Cash given by Shri Sagun Naik. Hence, this contention of the assessee is kindly not accepted. 7.20 It is also seen that out of the total cash of Rs. 50,40,000 received in the FY 2018-19 pertaining to the AY 2019-20, an amount of Rs. 16,90,000 alone has been received in the month of July, 2018, which is not justifiable. It is also stated that under the normal circumstances, the assesse had admitted that the cash received by him as professional fees is deposited in the bank account immediately, either on the same day or the day after. There is no logic in keeping the cash received b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Addition 7.23 Thus, had the Search not been conducted, this amount of Rs. 16,00,000 would not have been brought to tax and would surely have escaped assessment. 7.24 In the light of the above mentioned facts, it is clear that the assessee is found to be the owner of money of Rs. 16,00,000 which has not been recorded in the books of accounts and that the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory and hence the cash carried by the assessee is unexplained and is therefore added u/s 69 A of the Act as Unexplained Money." 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition stated that the statement of the assessee is dissatisfactory as in this return digital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... book and therefore the lower authorities are correct in treating the same undisclosed. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. To recapitulate the fact that the submission of the assessee is that he carried a cash balance of Rs. 16,00,000/- in order to pay the Senior Counsel in Delhi where the case of his clients are listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The assessee further submitted that the source for the cash is from the professional fees which have been counted in the books of accounts. On perusal of records we notice that the assessee has submitted the cash book, bank statement and ledger copy of professional fees etc. before the lower authorities. It is also noticed the date wise breakup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmit that the cash book is not reliable. The ld. AR argued that the narration cannot be taken as the deciding factor, The ld AR submitted that these entries towards professional fees have been disclosed as received in cash and have been offered to tax as income. The ld. AR in this regard drew out attention to the ledger account of professional fees received (page 68 to 76 in the paper book) to submit that the impugned in transactions are reconciling to the entries in the professional fees ledger account which would substantiate that the same is already forming part of the taxable income of the assessee. We also notice on perusal of records that the cash balance of the assessee as on the date of confiscation was Rs. 19,81,403/- (page 58 in t....