DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. HAPUR PILKHUWA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HAPUR

1 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

DCIT Vs Hapur Pilukhuwa Development CGO-2, Hapur Chungi, Authority, Preet Vihar, Delhi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh road, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AAALH0051L Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement 29/04/2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP :

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order of the

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi order dated 19/09/2025

pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16.

constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns

and villages, within the notified area of Hapur. Return of Income for the

assessment year under consideration was filed by the appellant on

26.9.2015 claiming benefit of section 11 of the Act on an income of

2 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa Rs. NIL. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The

assessment proceedings were concluded vide assessment order dated

14.12.2017 at an income of Rs. 8,79,69,480/- against returned income

of NIL. As against the assessment order dated 14/12/2017, the

Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld.

NFAC/CIT(A) vide order dated 19/09/2025 allowed the Appeal of the

Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) 19/09/2025, the

Revenue preferred the present Appeal.

has failed to appreciate correct fact that the Assessee is engaged

dominantly in the activity of development and sale of properties and the

aggregate value of receipts from the activities referred to in the first

proviso of Section 2 (15) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) committed

error in allowing the Appeal of the Assessee, thus sought for allowing the

Appeal.

issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered in Assessee’s

own case decided in ITA No. 4691/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-

15) vide order dated 25.6.2025 and ITA No. 3102/Del/2025

(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) vide order dated 28/10/2025

respectively, wherein, the issue involved in the present Appeal has been

3 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa decided in favour of the Assessee. Thus, the Ld. Assessee's

Representative sought for dismissal of the Revenue.

on record. We find that the Coordinate Bench in Revenue’s appeal

decided in ITA No. 3102/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) vide

order dated 28/10/2025 held as under:-

“5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case, while allowing the Appeal of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 in ITA No. 4691/Del/2024, vide order dated 25/06/2025 held as under:- “4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that on the first issue viz. activity of assessee/ development authority u/s 2(15) of the Act is concerned, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4125/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 wherein, the Tribunal relied upon the earlier decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1384 to 1386/2016 dated 6.6.2018 for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, which 4 has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that recently in two decisions of the Coordinate Bench the present issue is fully covered by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Meerut Development Authority ITA no. 1657/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15 ) vide order dated 27.01.2025 and also covered in another case of ‘C’ Bench, ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Kanpur Development Authority in ITA No. 1655/Del/2018 dated 12.03.2025. In these cases being similar type of organization under the same Act, the issue was decided in assessee’s favour after considering the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDU) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. 449 ITR 1 & 449 ITR 389. 5. As regards second issue relating to amount credited to infrastructure development fund is concerned, it is submitted that the same issue is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4125/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. It is further

4 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa submitted that recently in two decisions of the Coordinate Bench this issue is fully covered i.e. ITAT, Delhi ‘E’ Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Meerut Development Authority ITA no. 1657/Del/2018 AY 2014-15 vide order dated 27.01.2025 and in another case of ‘C’ Bench, ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Kanpur Development Authority in ITA No. 1655/Del/2018 dated 12.03.2025. Thus, it is submitted that respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. The aforesaid factual position has not been controverted by the ld. DR for the Revenue, but he has supported he order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As regards the issue of activity of assessee/ development authority u/s 2(15) of the Act is concerned, we note that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4125/Del/2017 vide order dated 04.02.2022 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 wherein, the Tribunal relied upon the earlier decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1384 to 1386/2016 dated 6.6.2018 for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, which has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in its order dated 04.02.2022 are as under:-

“8. At the very outset, Id. AR for the assessee contended that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 and also covered by the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in assessee's own case (ITA No. 657 of 2007). Learned AR for the assessee also laid emphasis on the principle of consistency, as this issue for the earlier years has been successively decided in favour of the assessee. This factual position has not been controverted by Id. DR for the Revenue, but he has supported the order passed by Id. CIT(A). 9. We have perused the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in ITA No. 1384 to 1386/2016, which is on identical issue. Coordinate Bench of Tribunal by relying upon the decision dated 21.04.2017 rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and another decision dated 04.01.2018 rendered by coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Moradabad Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemption) in ITA No. 6 4631 & 4632/Del/2007, decided the issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings:-

“3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs.Yamuna

5 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa Expressway Industrial Development Authority, vide judgment delivered on 21.4.2021, has decided similar issue in assessee's favour. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Moradabad Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemption), vide order dated 4.1.2018 in ITA No. 4631 and 4632/Del/2017, dealt with the case of an Authority working in the same way as the assessee in question and held that the benefit of exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal considered the relevant judgments on the point and eventually held that the case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yamuna Express way Industrial Development Authority (supra). A copy of such order has been placed on record in which the relevant discussion has been made from pages 2 to 7 of the order. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant case are mutatis mutandis similar to those as considered and decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (supra) and the Tribunal in Moradabad Development Authority (supra), we uphold the impugned order in deciding this issue in assessee’s favour. This ground is not allowed.”

6 ITA No. 7749/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Hapur Pilukhuwa section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.” 6. In view of the above, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the Appeal of the Assessee. Finding no merits in the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue.”

following the aforesaid precedent, as aforesaid, we do not find any

infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, hence, we affirm the same

and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Date:- 29.04.2026 SR BHATNAGAR