AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22-9-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ''C in IT(SS) A No. 74/Delhi/2000 relevant for the block assessment period 1988-89 to 1998-99 and in ITA No. 4004/Delhi/2002 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.
The present appeal is, however, preferred only against the block assessment.
The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the assessee received commission of 4 per cent on sale of properties (2 per cent from the buyer and 2 per cent from the seller) as held by the assessing officer and by the Commissioner (Appeals) or whether it used to receive commission at 2 per cent for such transactions.
On consideration of the material, it appears that the statement of one Raju Prasad, who was an employee of the assessee and was working as a Peon for the last six months may have had some influence in the decision taken by the assessing officer. Be that as it may the assessing officer proceeded on the basis of his personal knowledge about the practice in the trade. This can hardly be said to be legal evidence.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that reliance upon the statement of Raju Prasad was inadequate and there was no evidence at all to suggest that the assessee was charging 4 per cent commission as held by the assessing officer. We find this to be merely a case of appreciation of the evidence on record. This does not, in our opinion, raise any substantial question of law.
Dismissed.