2017 (12) TMI 253 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of undisclosed franchisee commission and addition on account of suppression of income from the self controlled outlets - Held that - Addition on account of undisclosed franchisee commission and addition on account of suppression of income from the self controlled outlets are concerned, the previous decision for another assessment year, in the assessee s case; reported as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns N Petals (2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT) cover the same, no question of law arises. Additions made as non refundable security - as held by the CIT(A) and ITAT to be not taxable - Held that - The MOU was merely a draft and not signed by the parties and they were accompanied by the corroborative evidence. Addition of ₹ 45,74,503/- on account of unexplained investment in stock under Section 69, which was deleted by CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT, the Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises as these are only finding of facts.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A
2. Addition on account of undisclosed franchisee commission
3. Addition on account of suppression of income from self-controlled outlets
4. Taxability of non-refundable security amount
5. Taxability of certain expenses
6. Taxability of unexplained investment in stock under Section 69

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised questions of law regarding the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Court referred to a previous decision in the assessee's case and concluded that no question of law arises in this regard.

2. Regarding the addition on account of undisclosed franchisee commission and suppression of income from self-controlled outlets, the Court relied on a previous decision and found no question of law arising, as it was covered by the earlier judgment.

3. The questions related to the taxability of a non-refundable security amount, certain expenses, and a specific amount were considered. The Court noted that the MOU in question was a draft and not signed by the parties, accompanied by corroborative evidence. The taxability of these amounts was decided by the CIT(A) and ITAT, with the Court opining that these were findings of fact, and no question of law arose.

4. An addition on account of unexplained investment in stock under Section 69 was also challenged. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, which was upheld by the ITAT. The Court held that this, too, was a finding of fact, and no question of law arose.

5. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose in the issues raised by the appellant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.