I suspect that the NIO avoided use of the name "Graham Hancock" because of the 'negative implications' surrounding that name. That name was mentioned in connection with press statements regarding the Cambay findings, and I believe the NIO wanted to distance itself from Graham Hancock at all costs, just as it would distance itself from any findings which have the name "Erich von Daniken" associated with them.
In the same vein, the dating of the ruins in question was assigned to a period that would not raise eyebrows and cause many red faces in academia.
To do otherwise would bring another negative backlash as occurred in the Cambay announcement, where irate orthodox archeologists questioned whether those structures were even man-made, much less dated back to anything before the Harappan period.
I think though that the way this press release is written - in a such a way as to avoid an immediate hostile response - does not mean that ultimately the proper credit will not be assigned to Graham Hancock for the contributions he has made.