ITO,WARD-1(2), DHANBAD vs. SMT. CHAMPA DEVI, DHANBAD

The Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)- Dhanbad’s order dated 09/10/2018, passed in 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.

The Revenue has raised three substantive grounds 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 Smt. Champa Devi A.Y.: 2014-15 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 unexplained investment addition of Rs. 1,17,99,500/- as value of consideration; respectively made in assessment order dated 27.12.2016. Learned departmental representative invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s detailed reasoning in the above stated assessment order making the impugned addition on account of difference 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 unexplained investment. He thereafter submitted that the assessee had filed an alleged rectified 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 since the Assessing Officer had not been given any opportunity to verify the same.

Faced with the factual plea hereinabove, learned authorized representative stated at the Bar that although the assessee had got the rectification deed with the above stated party as per her plea’s made in assessment 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 back to the Assessing Officer so as to verify all the necessary facts.

We deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that the Revenue’s three sole grievance(s) raised in the instant lis deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in order to factually verify the clinching aspect of the assessee’s rectified deed(s) as per law . We order accordingly. Section 69 issue of unexplained investment addition (supra) also follows suit being an ancillary one. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine and verify all the issues hereinabove within three effective opportunities of hearing.