R.P. Tolani, Judicial Member. - This is a group of appeals filed by the assessee. The issues involved being common and the assessee being the same, all the appeals are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. The main grounds raised in the appeals for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 pertain to receipt of commission from M/s. Bofors, a Swedish company, dealing in arms and ammunition, to the extent not disclosed by the assessee and in subsequent years, income from interest on this undisclosed commission. In all these years there are other additions on account of House Property income and disallowance of business expenses. The figures are given in the respective assessment orders. They can be summarized as under :

"A: Common ground for AYs 1987-88 and 1988-89 - Addition on account of commission - 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the additions at Rs. 52,60,34,469 and 85,31,425 respectively made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged commission received by the appellant through M/s. Svenska Incorporated Panama, alleged to be a front company of the appellant.

1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid addition was made by the Assessing Officer without bringing on record any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had received any commission from AB Bofors.

1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in relying upon SNAB and the letter written by Mr. Sven Rabmkergar and not appreciating that the report of National Audit Bureau of Sweden "SNAB", on the basis of which the aforesaid addition was made, was only a press report and, therefore, had no evidentiary value.

1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer merely on conjectures and surmises without bringing on record any evidence that the amount was received by the assessee (and that the interest had accrued on such commission).

1.4 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that as per the undertaking given by the Government of India, the evidence from Switzerland had to be used only in case in which the Letters Rogatory was issued and could not be used for the purpose of income-tax proceedings.

B. Interest on above commission income : Common for 1988-89 to 1999-2000 - The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming these additions on account of notional interest in respect of the above commission allegedly received by the appellant from M/s. Bofors through M/s. Svenska Inc., Panama.

C. House Property additions Common for all assessment years - That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the income from house property at a higher figure.

That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in taking the annual value of the property located at E-1, Placimo, Bombay at Rs. 2,59,800 as against actual rent of Rs. 31,200 received by the appellant during the year.

D. Business additions/disallowances : (A.Y. 1987-88) - (i) That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of salary amounting to Rs. 16,000 and staff welfare expenses of Rs. 10,917 incurred in respect of Mrs. Nandini Chadha, daughter-in-law of the appellant, on the ground that nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exigencies of business could not be established.

(ii) That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of salary amounting to Rs. 35,350 and Rs. 39,250 paid to Mr. H.W. Chadha (son of the appellant) and Mrs. K.W. Chadha (wife of the appellant), respectively, on the ground that the same were incurred for non-business purposes.

(iii) That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 43,200, being reimbursement of rent to Mr. H.W. Chadha and Mrs. K.W. Chadha, holding that the premises in respect of which the rent was paid, was being used for non