IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA No.1486/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 DCIT, Vs. Dilip Motilalji Chordia Circle-8, Pune 13, Sajjan Plaza, Opp. Hindustan Bakery, Chinchwad, Pune 411 033 Maharashtra PAN : AAMPC1174F Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.17/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1486/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dilip Motilalji Chordia Vs. DCIT, 13, Sajjan Plaza, Circle-8, Pune Opp. Hindustan Bakery, Chinchwad, Pune 411 033 Maharashtra PAN : AAMPC1174F Cross Objector Appellant in the appeal Appellant by : Shri Shashank Ojha (Through Virtual)

Respondent by : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Date of hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 are directed against the order dated 13.05.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating that the claim of TDR proceeds being exempt under RFCTLRR Act was never raised by the assessee before the AO during the assessment proceedings and the same was being raised by the assessee for the first time during the appellate proceedings and therefore, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity to the AO to furnish his comments either under the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules or by calling for a remand report under the provisions of Sec. 250(4) of the IT. Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of ₹5,30,21,178 by holding that the proceeds received by the assessee against sale of TDRs were exempt under Section 96 of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 2018 (RFCTLRR Act), without verifying whether the lands in lieu of which the TDRs were awarded to the assessee were compulsorily acquired by the competent authority under the said statute and whether the relevant conditions specified in the Act were fulfilled while acquiring the assessee's land.

3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire proceeds received by the assessee on sale of TDRs were exempt under RFCTLRR Act, without appreciating that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of real- estate and the sale of TDRs also involves profit element whereas what is sought to be exempt under RFCTLRR Act is only the compensation received by the assessee upon compulsory acquisition of his land under the said statute.

4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Assessee has raised following Cross Objections :

“1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of law, it be held that if the proceeds received by the Respondent against sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) is considered to be taxable, the Respondent is eligible to claim appropriate cost of value of lands compulsorily acquired by Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PMC). Just and proper relief be allowed to the Respondent in this respect.

2. The Respondent prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property, profits and gains from business and income from other sources. Income ₹

of 28,37,460 declared in the retur