PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT - 1 vs. MANISHABEN N MASHRU

C/TAXAP/1099/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 1099 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 1101 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL No. 1103 of 2018 =========================================================== == PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT - 1 Versus MANISHABEN N MASHRU ============================================================= Appearance : Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 10th September 2018

COMMON ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue give rise to similar question, in a similar background. We may, therefore, refer to the facts arising in Tax Appeal No. 1099 of 2018. The Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot [“Tribunal” for short] dated 4th January 2018, raising the following questions for our consideration : Page 1 of 4

C/TAXAP/1099/2018 ORDER [A] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on account of “unexplained cash credits” ?” [B] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,50,978/= despite the fact that the assessee had voluntarily disclosed the amount before DDIT [Investigation]-2, Rajkot ?” The respondent-assessee is an individual. She is the owner and proprietor of a concern-M/s. Shree Divya Travels which is engaged in providing travel related services; including booking of air tickets for the clients. The Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment made addition of Rs. 5.10 Crores [rounded off] in the income of assessee with an aid of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short], out of which Rs. 36.50 lakhs was relateable to disclosures made by the assessee during the survey operations. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. CIT [A] deleted much of the additions and retained only a smaller portion, upon which the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Revenue Page 2 of 4

C/TAXAP/1099/2018 ORDER also filed an appeal. The Tribunal deleted entire additions, thus allowing the assessee’s appeal and dismissed the Revenue’s. Having heard learned advocate for the Revenue and having perused the documents on record, we notice that the Tribunal has discussed the issue at a considerable length. The assessee had explained that she was a member of International Air Transport Association. She used to book domestic and international air tickets of various national and international airlines. She had voluminous turnover from which she earned sizeable commission. She had employed several employees for booking the tickets and looking after the financial transactions. She had several customers for whom she would make such bookings. The commission was paid by the Airlines through the banking channel. There was thus no cash element or scope of any cash transactions. She was maintaining her books of account which were duly audited. During the survey, the Revenue authority had a chance upon some such papers in which jottings were made by the employees with regard to financial details with the assessee. They merely contain certain receivable amounts from the customers which could not be construed as cash transactions. The Tribunal accepted such Page 3 of 4

C/TAXAP/1099/2018 ORDER explanation and endorsed substantially the view of CIT [A] who also looked into these very papers and transactions. The entire issue is thus based on factual considerations. When the CIT [A] and the Tribunal, on the basis of materials on record, have come to a definite conclusion, in our opinion, no question of law arises. With respect to deletion of addition of Rs. 36.50 Lakhs to which second proposed question of law relates, the CIT [A] in particular had come to a conclusion that such addition was already made in the earlier year and second time, this cannot be added. In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed. [Akil Kureshi, J.] [B.N Karia, J.] Prakash Page 4 of 4