Sunil Narula vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

The assessee is aggrieved by an order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (''Tribunal'') (Delhi Bench ''G'' Delhi) in ITA No. 1344/(Delhi)/04 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.

The assessee had filed a return in which he sought to set off the losses incurred by him in his real estate consultancy business against the rental income from house property.

The assessing officer had directed an Inspector to ascertain whether the assessee was carrying on any business but he found that the premises were locked.

The assessing officer gave an opportunity to the assessee to produce some evidence to show that he was carrying on the real estate consultancy business but the assessee failed to produce any worthwhile evidence.

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing officer.

In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee was unable to give any documentary evidence to show that he was carrying on any real estate consultancy business. It appeared that the business was being claimed only for the purpose of setting off the losses incurred by the assessee against his income from house property.

The Tribunal also concurred with the view taken by both the authorities.

Since all the three authorities have taken a concurrent view that the assessee was not doing any real estate consultancy business and the assessee did not produce any worthwhile documentary evidence in support of such a claim. We find that we are being asked to adjudicate on a question of fact, which cannot be done at this stage, particularly when no perversity has been shown.

No question of law arises for our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.