1 5.ITXA.237-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.237 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-13. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri Bhavin V. Desai. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. B. V. Jhaveri, for the Respondent. .... CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16 th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Following two questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal. “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) and ITAT was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.1,87,52,740/- received by the from ABN Amro Bank is reimbursement of expenses instead of Service Charges received ? (b) Whether the CIT(A) and ITAT was justified in deleting the additions of Rs.48,12,647/- made by the A. O. on account of failure of the assessee to substantiate the expenses ?” 2 5.ITXA.237-11 2. Perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer shows that out of sum of Rs.1,87,52,740/- claimed as reimbursement of expenses, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs.48,12,647/- on the ground that the said amount represented the fees for the services rendered by the assessee. The CIT(A) as also the ITAT have held on construction of the agreement that the assessee has been paid separately for the services rendered and the amount of Rs.1,87,52,740/- received by the assessee was towards the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of the third parties. In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on a finding of fact and no fault can be found with the same. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)