Court dismisses appeal as no legal question raised by appellant. Appeal dismissed accordingly.

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

---

---

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.

---