Tax (Central)-2 v. For The Above Reasons, The Appeal Cannot Be Entertained As Noquestion Of Law Arises. It Is Accordingly Dismissed

$~35 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1018/2017PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr.Standing Counsel versus SMT.MEETA GUTGUTIAThrough:Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R%21.11.2017 The appellant Revenue urges 7 questions of law. So far as thequestion relating to admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A;addition on account of undisclosed franchisee commission andaddition on account of suppression of income from the self controlledoutlets are concerned, the previous decision for another assessmentyear, in the assessee’s case; reported as “Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns “N” Petals” (2017)395 ITR 526 cover the same, no question of law arises. The otherquestions relate to the additions made as non refundable security ofRs. 65,000/- , amount of Rs. 28,470 as expenses and Rs. 4,00,000/-which authority below found to be accounted for and it was held bythe CIT(A) and ITAT to be not taxable. The MOU was merely a draft and not signed by the parties and they were accompanied by thecorroborative evidence.Addition of Rs. 45,74,503/- on account ofunexplained investment in stock under Section 69, which was deletedby CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT, the Court is of the opinion thatno question of law arises as these are only finding of facts. For the above reasons, the appeal cannot be entertained as noquestion of law arises. It is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 21, 2017‘rs’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J