9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravel Management India Private Limited and charged Interest. Therefore, the Bills which are in the name of Wings Travel Management India Private Limited are not the proof of expenditure incurred by the assessee for improvement of the flat owned by him. Since the assessee has failed to file the necessary documentary evidence for claiming Cost of Improvement and the AO has already allowed assessee s partial claim of Cost of Improvement, to the extent of bills which are in the name of the assessee, we uphold the disallowance made by the AO - Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd proper relief in this respect. 4. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." Brief facts of the case : 3. As emanating from the assessment order and submission of the ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee, the assessee E-filed its Return of Income for A.Y.2014-15 on 20.01.2016. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee has sold Flat No.1103, partly situated on 11th Floor and partly on 12th Floor in B-Wing along with adjacent terrace, car parks of "SHRINIWAS BLOSSOM BOULEVARAD CO. OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.", Village Ghorpadi for Rs. 3,50,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 27.06.2013. Assessee had shown income from Long Term Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book, issued by Nutech Sales Corporation of Rs. 2,07,362/- and Rs. 8,189/-. The ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The ld.AR further submitted that assessee had purchased the impugned flat from the builder in raw condition and then, subsequently made civil work. Ld.AR also filed copies of the photographs to demonstrate the civil work. Ld.AR filed a date wise list of bills of the said civil work. Ld.AR vehemently submitted that AO and ld.CIT(A) failed to consider these evidences of extra work done by assessee which is nothing but cost of improvement. Submission of ld.DR : 5. The ld.DR invited our attention to the order of the ld.CIT(A) to demonstrate that ld.CIT(A) had con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Pvt Lt Camary Square Jali Jaquar Fittings 63179 09-Aug-12 Sathe a Company Pvt Ltd Being payable for Bathroom fittings purchased for 1103, as per bill no. SCPL/12- 13/PIV/CA2335 91,051 01-Sep-12 BLUE RAYS Being Bill no 19103 dt 30.08.2012 against purchase of TPW 1162 LED Panels 27,039 05-Sep-12 National Packers ft Movers Being paid for furniture packing charges as per bill no. 631 / 2012- 13. 4,500 08-Sep-12 BLUE RAYS Being Bill no 19183 Dt 8.09.2012 against purchase of Electrical goods. 31,877 27-Sep-12 Satyam Hardware Being Fevical purchased for Blossom project bill no. 315 1,744 26-NOV-12 Aircon Solutions Being paid for Installation of Air Conditioners at Blossom 1103 Service apartment. 20,200 14-Dec-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in the name of Wings Travel Management India Private Limited for Rs. 2,07,362/-. * Another bill dated 18.02.2012 issued by Nutech Sales Corporation is in the name of Wings Travel Management India Private Limited for Rs. 8,189/-. 6.3 Thus, both the bills issued by Nutech Sales Corporation are in the name of Wings Travel Management India Private Limited and not assessee. 6.4 To claim cost of improvement, assessee has to establish that assessee had incurred expenditure for improvement of the Immovable Asset. However, the assessee failed to file any evidence to prove that the assessee had incurred expenditure for improvement of the impugned immovable asset. The Bills filed by the assessee are mainly in the name of Wings Travel Managemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case, since the assessee has failed to file the necessary documentary evidence for claiming Cost of Improvement and the Assessing Officer has already allowed assessee's partial claim of Cost of Improvement, to the extent of bills which are in the name of the assessee, we uphold the disallowance of Rs. 33,84,921/- made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. As we have already made it clear that ld.AR of the assessee has pleaded on only one issue i.e. Cost of Improvement. Therefore, we have decided only the issue of Cost of Improvement. 8. The ld.AR had pleaded before us with reference to the issue of cost of improvement that since ld.CIT(A) had not considered the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
