IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI, E COURT, AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S.S. GODAR A, JM ./ITA NO.06/RAN/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15) ITO, WARD-1(2), DHANBAD VS. SMT. CHAMPA DEVI NEAR SAMRAT HOTEL, BARTAND, DHANBAD ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: ABQPD 1694 J (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. S. KHALKO, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK AGARWAL, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 02/09/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/09/2020 / O R D E R PER SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM: THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-1 5 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)- DHANBADS ORDER DATED 09/10/2018, PASSED I N CASE NO. CIT(A), DHANBAD/10100/2016-17 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE SUBSTANTIVE GR OUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKING TO REVERSE THE CIT(A)S ACTION ALLEGEDLY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 THEREBY DELETING SECTION I.T.A NO.06/RAN/2019 SMT. CHAMPA DEVI A.Y.: 2014-15 PAGE | PAGE | PAGE | PAGE | 2 22 2 56(2)(VII)(B) ADDITION(S) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IS STAMP AND SALE DEED PRICE(S) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,02,44,000/- AND SECTION 69 UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,99,500/- AS VALUE OF CONSIDERATION; RESPE CTIVELY MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2016. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS DETAILED REASONING IN THE ABOVE STATED ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN STAMP DOCUMENT VALUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AMOUNT IN QUESTION U /S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AS WELL AS TREATING VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS PER DEED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO OWNERS AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT. HE THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN ALLEGED RE CTIFIED DEED PERTAINING TO M/S HINDUSTHAN BUILDERS FORMING BASIS FOR THE CIT(A) TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION THEREBY VIOLATING RULE 46A OF THE RULES SI NCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME. 3. FACED WITH THE FACTUAL PLEA HEREINABOVE, LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATED AT THE BAR THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD G OT THE RECTIFICATION DEED WITH THE ABOVE STATED PARTY AS PER HER PLEAS MADE IN ASSESS MENT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ACCEPTED AS CORRECT IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER , SHE SHALL; HOWEVER, HAVE NO OBJECTION IN CASE THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS RESTORED BA CK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO VERIFY ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS. 4. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDRO P THAT THE REVENUES THREE SOLE GRIEVANCE(S) RAISED IN THE INSTANT LIS DESERVE S TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO FACTUALLY VERIFY THE CLINCHING ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEES RECTIFIED DEED(S) AS PER LAW . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . SECTION 69 ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION (SUPRA) ALSO FOLLOW S SUIT BEING AN ANCILLARY ONE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND VE RIFY ALL THE ISSUES HEREINABOVE WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. I.T.A NO.06/RAN/2019 SMT. CHAMPA DEVI A.Y.: 2014-15 PAGE | PAGE | PAGE | PAGE | 3 33 3 5. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.09.2020 SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) SD/- (S.S.GODARA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER /KOLKATA; / DATE: 23/09/2020 SB, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD-1(2), DHANBAD 2. SMT. CHAMPA DEVI 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- RANCHI 5. CIT(DR), RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI . 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES