1.Having regard to these objectives, and the mandate of Section 158B(b), the sum of Rs. 42 lakhs brought to tax by the AO in the entire circumstances of thecasewas reasonable given the materials seized, the survey conducted and the statements recorded during the course of assessment proceedings. All these clearly reveal that the security deposit was a mere camouflage or a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date, at the convenience of the assessee. Clearly, the amount received pursuant to the agreement and the conveyances executed thereafter, showed that the intent of the parties was to treat it as a final consideration payable and paid in presenti. For these reasons, the first question is to be answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. 2.question of whether the seized diary per se could in the overall circumstances of thecaseresult in the addition of Rs. 30 crores. The assessee’s explanation consistently was that Rs. 30 crores was towards internal and external development charges. This was an aspect which could be easily decided by securing relevant information from the statutory authority, i.e. HUDCO who received the payments. Independent corroboration of these too could have been sought otherwise the relevant books of account could have been checked. Furthermore, the statute does not compel the Revenue to raise a presumption; even when a tax authority does so, the sole basis of an addition entirely hinging upon the interpretation of certain figures in a diary would be flawed. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that since the inference drawn with respect to findings are based on essentially factual materials which were analyzed by the CIT and the ITAT, there is no reason to interfere with those findings. This question is accordingly answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. 3.uestion pertains to pure finding of fact which concerns inferences to be drawn on the basis of material found. The CIT(A) and the ITAT felt that the amounts reflected in the seized slips were fully explained in the relevant cash balances found in the books of accounts and the bank statements of the assessee. Furthermore, the ITAT has remitted the issue with respect to verification of the extent of addition after having upheld the CIT(A)’s order. Thus, the question only is whether the sum to be added back is Rs. 6,35,525/- or something more. Given the intensely factual nature of analysis, the Court is of the opinion that there is no substantial error calling for interference. This question of law is, therefore, answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4.facts clearly indicate that Rs. 92 lakhs was claimed as commission payable to Televista and reflected duly in the documents and books filed along with the returns. These was subjected to normal assessment at the time when they were reported. The block assessment did not bring out any fresh material except the invoices for the AO to deduce any further undisclosed income. In these circumstances, the addition made by the AO was, in the opinion of this Court, correctly set aside by the lower appellate authorities. This question of law too is answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee