Held that during the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted details of payment regarding transfer expenses of Rs. 45 lakhs towards sales commission in connection with transfer of property containing therein the names of the parties and addresses, permanent account numbers, cheque numbers and dates and amounts. Copies of three invoices from the parties to whom commission was paid for the commission amount of Rs. 15 lakhs each were also produced and the bank statement of the assessee showed total payment of Rs. 45 lakhs in three entries of Rs. 15 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer had accepted that the assessee had submitted vouchers in support of transfer expenses and that payments were made through the assessee’s bank account. Therefore the genuineness of the payment of Rs. 45 lakhs as transfer expenses in connection with transfer of property was established. The disallowance was made only because agreements with respect to commission services were not submitted. The commission recipients acted on oral instructions of the seller of the property. Undoubtedly, the commission had been paid through the bank account of the assessee. Therefore the disallowance is  not justified. Tribunal also held that  no plea to get the cost of construction valued through a Departmental Valuation Officer or that the brokerage and construction cost was in effect reopening the assessment of assessment year 2011-12 was ever taken before the Assessing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. In the absence of any reasonable cause for not raising these pleas before the Assessing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel they could not be raised before the Tribunal. Consequently, the disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 31,86,363 (indexed cost Rs. 57,43,085) was justified and therefore sustained.(AY.2021-22)