IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2021-22]

Vishan Gunna, vs ACIT, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-III, Road New Delhi.

No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. PAN-BMYPG5434R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv.

Respondent by Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 17.10.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] after giving effct to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) dated

31.08.2023 for AY 2021-22.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and filed her return of income, declaring total income of INR 9,99,370/- after claiming exemption u/s 54F & 54EC of the Act.

The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) dated 27.06.2022 by the ACIT/DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi. Thereafter, the proceedings were taken up and draft assessment order was passed on 31.12.2022 by the ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi. Against draft assessment order, objections were filed by the assessee before Ld.DRP who decided the objections raised by the assessee in terms of its order dated 31.08.2023. Consequently, Ld. ACIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act on 17.10.2023 at a total income of INR 10,05,59,451/- against which the present appeal is filed by the assessee by taking following grounds of appeal:-

1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the directions of the respected DRP vide order dated 13-09-2023 and consequent assessment order dated 17-10-2023 are not sustainable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought not to have confirmed the draft assessment order of the AO.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered the fact that there was an error committed by the Ld. AO in the calculation of built-up space received by the appellant- assessee as per the JDA and Supplementary Agreements. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the AO was not correct in ignoring the fact that a part of land earmarked for development had to be surrendered to GHMC for road widening and consequently there was a reduction of eligible share in built-up Sft allotted to the land owners including the assessee.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in determining the sale consideration at Rs. 10,11,40,688/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no under statement of LTCG as determined by the Ld. AO.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered the fact that the appellant-assessee was entitled to include Rs.1,27,00,000/- paid to M/s Lumbini Constructions India Private Limited towards the cost of interiors, wood-work, etc, in the total investments made in the flats and consequently, was eligible to consider this amount for deduction u/s 54F.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought not to have disallowed the cost incurred for construction of servant quarter, compound wall etc,.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in denying the exemption clamed u/s 54EC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in denying the exemption clamed u/s 54F.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected DRP was not correct in giving directions that for the purpose of calculation of in