TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee claimed renovation expenses of Rs. 9,50,000/- and upon indexation at Rs. 20,04,015/- with respect to the said property. The assessee was required to provide documentary evidences in support of his claim of renovation of cost of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The assessee furnished reply which was rejected by the AO on the ground that assessee has failed to provide details of name, address and PAN of party to whom payment was made, did not furnish invoices, bank statements, reflecting the entries for the payment of Rs. 9,50,000/-. Accordingly, he proposed an addition of Rs. 20,04,015/- being indexed cost of renovation cost for which the assessee filed its objections before DRP. 3. In the course of proceedings before DRP the assessee submitted that all the payments for purchase of flat were made through assessee's bank account maintained in SBI, New York. It was also contended that more than 14 years lapsed from the time the flat was renovated and assessee being an individual does not maintained any regular books of accounts. The assessee submitted that since more than 13-14 years had lapsed assessee requested for old bank account statements from bank where the payments were made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank Amount (Rs) 05-04-2010 694177 ICICI Bank 15,000.00 05-04-2010 694176 ICICI Bank 15,000.00 05-04-2010 694175 ICICI Bank 15,000.00 05-04-2010 694174 ICICI Bank 15,000.00 26-04-2010 694180 ICICI Bank 2,00,000.00 26-06-2010 775595 ICICI Bank 3,00,000.00 01-09-2010 775559 ICICI Bank 50,000.00 07-09-2010 775558 ICICI Bank 50,000.00 20-09-2010 775556 ICICI Bank 50,000.00 29-09-2010 775557 ICICI Bank 50,000.00 16-07-2010 000023 Kotak Mahindra Bank 2,00,000.00 23-10-2010 000024 Kotak Mahindra Bank 1,00,000.00 It was also argued that the above factual position is verifiable from cheque counterfoils and bank statements etc. Further, it was submitted that it may also be appreciated that at the time a flat is handed over to the buyer, it requires significant renovation before it is inhabitable for living etc. Also for a flat size of approx 5250 ft amount Rs. 9.50 Lacs claimed on renovation is quite reasonable and justifiable. The Appellant requested before DRP-1 Delhi for admission of Additional Evidence in relation to Cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessee to execute the work for furnishing flat measuring 5250 sq. ft. The assessee could not locate bills/invoices for purchase of material, however, detailed work done was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and also proof of source of renovation/addition made in the flat by way to payment through account pay cheque to the contractor and cash withdrawals from bank for purchase of raw material is already submitted in support thereon. iii. Ld. AO has pointed out that No documentary evidence has been furnished to establish relationship between Fourth Dimensions and its Proprietor Sh. Alok Lal. It is submitted that M/S Fourth Dimensions is a sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Alok Lal. In respect of his services, he has issued Invoice No 010028 dated 10.05.2010 for an amount of Rs. 2,47,800/- and Invoice No.010029 dated 20.05.2010 for an amount of Rs. 59,000/- aggregating to Rs. 3,06,800.00. Payment in respect of his bills were made vide 694186 on 21.5.2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- through ICIC bank Account in favour of Alok Lal and vide 694173 on 08.4.2010 for Rs 90,000/- through ICIC bank Account in favour of Fourth Dimension, Further, signature as per is copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of LD. AO regarding cash withdrawals through 4 cheques of Rs 15000 each as to why cash could not have been withdrawn thought one cheque only. Kindly note Ch no. 694174 was issued on 4.4.2010, Ch no.694175 was issued on 31.03.2010 and Ch no. 694176 and 77 was issued on 5.04.2010. Possibly, separate cheques were issued for separate purchases etc. Further as per bank statement submitted Rs. 15000 each was withdrawn on 6-4-2010. Attention is invited to ITAT [C" Bench : Chennai order in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Sambandhan Dorairaj in ITA No 301/Chy/2020 wherein it has been held as under: "We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the case of the assessee is that he is residing at Mumbai and he has purchased an old house at Chennai and subsequently, repairs are carried in the house. The counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the repairs carried by the assessee long back, five years ago and therefore, he is not able to produce evidence before the A.O. He further submitted that the entire repair works/improvements carried out by his relatives and he is not able....