ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal.

“Grounds on assessment being invalid

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the office of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (‘CIT(A)’) by upholding the order passed by the Income tax officer, Ward- 1, Bidar (Id AO’) is devoid of any merits and void ab initio.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings initiated by the Ld AO under section 144 of the Income tax Act 1961 (‘the Act’) without taking into consideration the Return of Income filed by the me against notice issued under Section 142(1) of the notice are invalid.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO had grossly erred in not issuing a statutorily mandated notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment proceedings initiated are invalid and consequently the assessment order is void ab initio and non-est.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in making an addition in the assessment order without providing any basis/reasoning for not accepting the Return of Income furnished by me is clearly against the principles of natural justice.

Erroneous computation of Capital gains under section 45(2) of the Act

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO in determining the capital gains tax under section 45(2) of the Act, has grossly erred in calculating the fair market value of a capital asset (being 2 acres of land converted in to plots of 46,500 sft) by applying an arbitrary fair market value per square feet of land, instead of the stamp duty value adopted by the State Government as on the date of conversion, which has resulted in an excessive capital gain tax on the Appellant.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO in calculating the capital gains tax, has erroneously considered the aggregate plotting size of 2 acres of land to be at 63,225 square feet ("sft") instead of the actual aggregate plotting size at 46,500 sft, which has resulted in a wrong calculation of full value of consideration to adopted as per section 45(2) of the Act.

7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO has erroneously considered the entire 2 Acres of land (equivalent to 46,500 sft) as sold during the AY 201718, as against actual sale of 24,600 sqft which has resulted in excessive capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act.

8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards purchase of land.

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had completely ignored the fact that, I had incurred an amount of Rs 15,69,118 towards ground levelling charges in previous financial year and the same was eligible as deduction from sale consideration as cost of improvement.

Erroneous computation of business income

10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO in calculating the business income of the Appellant, has erroneously considered the aggregate plotting size of 2 acres of land to be at 63,225 square feet ("sft") instead of the actual aggregate plotting size at 46,500 sft, which has resulted in a wrong calculation of sale value for the purpose of calculating the business income of the Appellant.

11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO has adopted an erroneous and arbitrary value of selling price at Rs 600 per sqft instead of the actual selling price of Rs 310 per sqft, resulting in an excessive business income in the hands of the Appellant, which is not as per the provisions o