IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4408/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. Unitech reality Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-27(1), 6, Community Centre, Delhi Saket, New Delhi PAN: AAACR4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

With ITA No.4409/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/s. Unitech Residential Vs. DCIT, Resorts Ltd., Circle-27(1), Basement, 6, Community Delhi Centre, Saket, Delhi PAN: AAACG2305H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. D.C. Garg, CA Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.02.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These twin assessees, namely, ‘M/s. Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd.’

and ‘M/s. Unitech Residential Resorts Ltd.’ have filed their as many

2013-14 and 2010-11, against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s separate orders dated 29.03.2019 and 26.03.2019 passed in case nos. 43/18-19/1071 and 10159/2018-19, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2. The former assessee’s appeal ITA No.4408/Del/2019 raises the following substantive grounds:

1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 (“Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Act is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, to the extent it has partly dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) thereby upholding the addition of Rs.2,95,40,296/- towards exchange of land.

3. Without prejudice, both the lower authorities have gravely erred in not allowing the cost of land purchased to the appellate while making the addition towards the sale of land.”

3. Both the parties next invite our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion upholding the impugned addition of Rs.2,95,40,296/- on account of under-valuation of sale of land through exchange, reading as under:

“5. The third Group pertains to the addition of Rs.2,95,40,296/- on account of under valuation of sale of land through exchange.

During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed as under:-

“5. Sale of land through exchange:-

The assessee company has exchanged its land amounting to Rs.92,72,204/- shown under the head “Finished properties”/goods” in Note no. 11 of the financial statements with another land through Transfer deeds entered on 01.06.2012. However in the books of accounts, the assessee company has not disclosed any value of sale in relation to such exchange. Questionnaire was issued vide letter dated 15.12.2015, to submit details of transaction relating to the land purchase. The assessee vide its letter dated 02.02.2016 has submitted that Further as regards to your query regarding exchange of property, most humbly it is submitted that during the year consideration the assessee company due to some compelling circumstances and business prudence had to exchange some area of properties with the other one having equivalent area in the same vicinity i.e. In the village Badshahapur distt Gurgaon.

It would be needless to mention here that since the exchanged properties are in the same vicinity therefore circle rate of the properties are same. Enclosed please find the circle rates in the area in the F.Y 2012-13 relevant for the A/Y 2013-14, Further it would not be out of place to say that since the exchanged properties are in same area as mentioned above, therefore market value of the properties exchanged is also same. This fact is also mentioned in the exchange deed of the properties which are enclosed herewith for your kind perusal." The submission of the assessee has been considered. The fact of the transaction is that the assessee company has sold its exi