SMT T MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

153A, the assessee’s claim of Rs. 23,15,000/- under the head Repairs and Maintenance/ office building was rejected by the Assessing Officer for the reason that on verification of earlier and subsequent assessment records, the assessee has not reported any business income which clearly indicated that the assessee is not indulged in running regular business. In sworn statement also the assessee confirmed that she derives income from salary, house property and income from other sources. Thus, if any expenditure incurred during the year under consideration towards repairs should be capitalised.

Further, the expenditure routed through banking channel alone cannot be treated as the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards repairs of the said office premises. It may be cost of improvement of the said property.

Hence, the AO refused to allow assessee’s claim of such expenditure.

However, the AO held such expenditure as a capital expenditure, and hence added to the asset value and on the resultant sum computed depreciation at applicable rate and allowed it. The AO disallowed the balance sum.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to submit bills/ vouchers in support of her claim. Since, the assessee could not produce any proof to cross-verify with reference to breakup of the impugned expenditure, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 5.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 25th day of September, 2018 at Chennai.