1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.446 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.446 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.446 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central II .. Appellant V/s. Arshad Ahmed Siddiqui .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2008. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2008. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . In the Appeal following questions have been framed. (A) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in restricting the disallowance of Rs.44,99,000/- being amount treated as unaccounted income on recruitment of 2 candidates to Rs.30,000/-? (B) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,23,750/- being amount treated as unaccounted Visa processing charges ? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.42,00,000/- being amount treated as unexplained payment to Prince of Saudi Arabia ? (D) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.16,61,000/- being amount treated as unaccounted profit on sale of flats? (E) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition 3 of Rs.7,23,220/- being amount treated as unexplained Jewellery ? 2. It appears that the assessee was recruiting the professionals for jobs outside the country. The search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the Assessee. Assessment was completed under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act determining the undisclosed income at Rs.1,31,65,725/-. The Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on 23rd July, 2003. Against which an appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal held, "Besides on perusal of seized papers together with the elaborate contention/demonstration made by the learned counsel for the assessee before the Bench, we are of the opinion that these papers, to which the A.O. has made reference in the assessment order, either do not belong to the assesee or the candidates mentioned therein have not been recruited by the assessee; it is worthwhile to note that even the Assessing Officer has not relied on them for the purpose of number of candidates recruited by assessee and has not increased the number in accordance therewith as discussed above 4 in the contentions of learned AR of Assessee. Even apart, some documents rather support the assessee’s version that his gross collection per candidate was in the range of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and therefore these papers can not be relied upon for making the addition in the case of assessee." So the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Authority are on facts of the case. It is also stated, "We have given a careful consideration to the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record, we find that the loose papers contained in Annexure A-20 and A-32 merely list out the names of the persons, but no amounts or figures are appearing on these pages. It is also not mentioned in these papers as to whether they were recruited or any other service was availed of by these candidates. On confronting of these papers, the assessee had submitted that at the most it could be presumed that he might have provided visa services to these persons." The Tribunal further held, "As such, we are of the opinion that this addition is not tenable due to lack of any link with the seized material." The assessee also proved before the Tribunal that these are visa service charges of Rs.6,40,000/- which was one of the addition has been 5 shown by him in his regular books of account during the Financial Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 which the assessing officer has not taken into account of the assessee. 3. For these reasons, we find that the questions framed are factual in nature and no substantial question of law falls for consideration. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)