ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur, Durgapur V. Sri Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Durgapur

ITA 420/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6254 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHO CHAKRABORTY
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 131

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 420/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 INCOME TAX OFFICER,.............,.................. ...............................APPELLANT WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DURGAPUR-713216 -VS.- SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH,......................... .....................RESPONDENT S/O. BIJOY KUMAR SINGH, SIDULI, 5 NO. BAURI PARA, KORA PARA, KHANDRA, ANDAL, DURGAPUR-713322 [PAN: BNIPS 4759 Q] & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH,......................... .....................CROSS OBJECTOR S/O. BIJOY KUMAR SINGH, SIDULI, 5 NO. BAURI PARA, KORA PARA, KHANDRA, ANDAL, DURGAPUR-713322 [PAN: BNIPS 4759 Q] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,.............,.................. ...............................RESPONDENT WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DURGAPUR-713216 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SANKAR HALDER, ADDL. CIT, SR. D.R. , FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SUBHO CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 29, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 25, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-DURGAPUR DATED 10.11.2016 AND ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 2 THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- (1) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS), DURGAPUR HAS ERRED BY CONSIDERING THA T THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED ON 06.05.2014 IS THE ONLY CORRECT RETURN AND THE EARLIER RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VALID RETURN OF INCOME. (2) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), DURGAPUR ERRED IN CONSIDE RING THE RETURN FILED ON 06.05.2014 AS THE ONLY VALID RETURN AND THEREFORE DELETING THE ASSESSMENT OF RS.1,08,35,260 /- MADE BY THE AO AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS AN AGENT OF M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINAN CIAL SERVICES ON COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE BASIS. IN THIS CASE, THREE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS FOLL OWS:- (I) ON 24.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08 ,35,260/ - (II) ON 26.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,2 7,79,380/ - (III) ON 06.05.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1, 78,500/ - . 4. SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2013 WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ALLO WED UNDER SECTION 139(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE THE REVISED RETURNS UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.09.2013 AND 06.05.2014, THEREFORE, WERE NOT VALI D IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITH REF ERENCE TO THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09 .2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,35,260/-. IN THIS REGARD, THE EXP LANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND CONVINCING AND SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D BY HIM ON THE TOTAL ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 3 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,08,35,260/- VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MAD E ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS):- THAT THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE APPELL ANTS PREVIOUS CONSULTANT E-FILED ORIGINAL AND REVISED RE TURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,35,260/- AND RS.1,27,79,380/- RESPECTIVELY WITH EVIL INTENTION T O TROUBLE THE APPELLANT WITH FORGED SIGNATURE. AFTER KNOWING THE FACTS THE APPELLANT FILED THE CORRECT INCOME IN HIS REVISED RETURNS OF RS. 1,78,500/- WHICH IS TRUE. 2. APPELLANT WAS A PETTY COMMISSION AGENT OF A FINA NCIAL COMPANY G.T.S AND TDS WAS DULY MADE FOR F.Y- 2012-1 3, THE COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXED HEREWITH. APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME AND HIS ORIGINAL INCOME WAS RS. 1, 78,500/- 3. THAT THE CENTRAL GRIEVANCE OF APPELLANT IS THAT THE INCOME SHOWN IN ORIGINAL AS WELL AS IN FIRST REVISE D RETURN WERE INCORRECT AND THEY WERE FILED BY APPELLANT'S P REVIOUS CONSULTANT WITH EVIL INTENTION TO TROUBLE THE APPEL LANT WITH FORGED SIGNATURE. APPELLANT WAS TOTALLY IN DARK ON SUCH UNCANNY DEVELOPMENT NOT ONLY THIS, THE SAME THINGS WERE TRICKED WITH OTHER AGENTS OF G.T.S WHO WERE APPELLA NT'S COLLEAGUES BY SAME CONSULTANT. WHEN THE CASE WAS TA KEN ON SCRUTINY APPELLANT APPEARED AND REPEATEDLY AVERRED THE SAID FACT. NOW WHAT IS MYSTERIOUS IS THAT OTHERS PE RSONS ORDER AS MENTIONED BEFORE WERE CORRECTED SUO MOTO B Y LD. A.O U/S 144, THE COPY OF WHICH ARE ANNEXED HEREWITH - ACCEPTING THE ACTUAL INCOME OF THEM. BUT IN APPELLA NT'S CASE ORIGINAL RETURN FIGURE WAS ACCEPTED AND ASSESS ED OVERRULING THE ACTUAL INCOME, WHEREIN THE 26AS AS W ELL AS AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. THUS THE SAID HIG H PITCHED ASSESSMENT WAS IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION WITH IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF OTHER PERSON WHERE T HE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE THE SAME. A.O BEING QUASI JUD ICIAL AUTHORITY EXERCISING THE POWER OF CIVIL PROCEDURE C ODE ON ADJUDICATION (ORDER OF C.P.C) HAD ACTED IN GROSS VI OLATION OF BASIC TENETS OF CPC. HOW COME TWO OUTCOMES POSSIBLE ON SAME CAUSE OF ACTION? ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 4 SECONDLY LD. A.O CANNOT BELITTLE AND OVERRULE THE DOCUMENTAL AND EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY APPELLANT TO HIM. THE SAID AFFIDAVIT WAS PASSED AS A REVISED STATEMENT OF APPELLANT OF DELINEATING ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING DECLARING ACTUAL INCOME. IT IS JUDICIALLY SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE ORIGINAL RETUR N WAS IN CORRECT AND TIME FOR LAST REVISED RETURN EXPIRED, A PPELLANT CAN FILED REVISED STATEMENT DECLARING CORRECT INCOM E. SINCE THE SECOND REVISED RETURN WAS FILED WITHIN TIME, SO THERE WAS SUBSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL RETURN. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN IS SUBSTITUTED BY REVISED RETURN THEN THE SAID REVISED RETURN PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF ORIGINAL RETURN. SO THE SAID REVISED RETURN CAN BE CORRECTED BY AFFIDAVIT AS THE LAST REVISED RETURN WAS FILED A FTER EXPIRY OF DUE TIME. SO APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT WAS AS GOOD A S ORIGINAL RETURN. SO LD. A.O SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED INCOME OF R S. 1,78,500/-. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI CENTRAL, HAD THE OCCASION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REVISED RETURN AND CORRECTION OF THE RETURN. IT WAS HELD: THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REVISED RETURN AND A CORRECTION OF THE RETURN. IF THE ASSESSED FILES SOM E APPLICATION FOR CORRECTING A RETURN ALREADY FILED O R MAKING AMENDS THEREIN, IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN. IT WILL STILL RETAIN THE CHARACTER OF AN ORIGINAL RETURN, BUT ONCE THE REVISED RETURN IS FIL ED, THE ORIGINAL RETURN MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAW N AND TO HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY A FRESH RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. APPELLANT'S CASE IS SAME AS THAT OF SAID JUDICIAL POSTURE. SO, KINDLY, QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN WR ITING WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTERS COMMENT. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON 24.10.2016, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER:- THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI DHANANJAY SINGH (PAN BWIPS4 759Q) FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.YR.20 13-14 ON ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 5 24/09/2013 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,35,2 60/- WHICH WAS FILED AFTER DUE DATE OF THE SAID ASSESSME NT YEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY HE FILED TWO REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME ON 26/09/2013 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,27,79,380 A ND 06/05/2014 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,78,500/-. II) THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 28/08/2015 WAS I SSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. III) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUMMON U/S 1 31 WAS ISSUED TO SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA ON 29/02/2016 REQUIR ING HIS PERSONAL PRESENCE IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 07/03/2016. THE PORTION O F HIS DEPOSITION RECORDED U/S 131 IN Q.13 IS AS UNDER: 'Q13. SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH ALLEGED THAT YOU H AVE FILED HIS RETURN WITHOUT KNOWING HIM FOR A.Y.2013-14 IN O RIGINAL AND REVISED. IS IT TRUE OR NOT? REASON THEREOF. ANS: IT IS NOT TRUE AS I HAVE ALREADY HANDOVER HIS USER ID AND PASSWORD IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2013. NO ANY DOCUME NT(S) HAD BEEN SIGNED BEFORE GIVING HIS PASSWORD.' IV) THE DECISION OF THE CRIMINAL DISPUTE BETWEEN AB HISHEK SHARMA AND DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF LAW AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GI VEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- I HAVE PERUSED THE REPORT OF THE A.O. PERUSAL OF S UBMISSION MADE BY THE A.O SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT COMMENT ED ANY MATERIAL FACTS OVER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ON FOLLOWING ISSUES:- 1. 26AS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. 2. THAT THE A.O HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY IN ORDER T O ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL INCOME FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPE LLANT. THE FACT NARRATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS NOT BEEN CON TROVERTED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI GHANASHYAM TANTI ALSO SHOWS THAT SAME INSTANCE HAS HAPPENED IN CASE OF SH RI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SHR I ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 6 GHANASHYAM TANTI ACCEPTED BY THE ITO, WARD-L(2), DU RGAPUR AND HIS INCOME WAS ASSESSED THE REVISED RETURN WHIC H WAS FILED ON 06.05.2014 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE GHANASHYAM TANTI, WHO I S ALSO VICTIM OF SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA (WHO FILED FORGED RE TURN OF INCOME). THAT HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS ONLY THE RETURN WHICH WAS FILED BY HIM. IN THE CASE OF MR. DHANANJA Y KUMAR SINGH ALSO THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y 2013-1 4 IS THE ONLY TRUE INCOME WHICH WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT O N 06.05.2014. CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE AFORESAID C ASE WHERE MR. ABHISHEK SHARMA DID MISCHIEF WITH SHRI GHANASHA YM TANTI AND IT WAS FOUND CORRECT THE MISCHIEF DONE IN CASE OF SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH IS ALSO HELD AS CORRECT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS COMMISSION AGENT IN M/S. GOLDEN TR UST FINANCIAL SERVICES. NO EXTRA PAYMENT HAS BEEN REPOR TED BY M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES ON WHICH TDS H AS BEEN DEDUCTED. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH DOES NOT REVEAL ANY EXCESS DEPOSIT OTHER THAN THE D ISCLOSED AMOUNT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT MR. ABHISHEK SHARMA W AS ONE OF THE EX-COUNCIL OF THE APPELLANT. EARLIER RELATION O F ABHISHEK SHARMA AND MR. DHANANJAY AS COUNSEL AND CLIENT IS A LSO ESTABLISHED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED DATED 06.05.2014 WAS ONLY THE CORRECT RETURN AND WA S ONLY THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, INCOM E ASSESSED BY A.O OF RS. 1,08.35,260/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS IS HE REBY DELETED AND HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IS TREATED AS TRUE . THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS REDUCED TO THE EXTEN T OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED DATED 06.05.2014. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THUS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 06.05.201 4 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,78,500/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 8. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,08,35,260/- ON THE BASIS OF RETURN FILED ON 24.09.2013 SUBMITTING THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2013 ALONE WAS A VALID RETURN AND THE SUBSEQUENT TWO RETURNS FILED BY HIM WERE NOT VALID AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HO WEVER, OVERLOOKED THIS STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING ON THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 7 OF SECTION 139(1) AND 139(5) AND ACCEPTED THE RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 06.05.2014 AS A VALID RETURN BY ACC EPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SU PPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN PROPERLY APPREC IATED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHILE TREATING THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED ON 06.05.2014 AS THE ONLY VALID RETURN FILED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BE FORE US, THE TWO RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2013 AND 26.09.2013 WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE S AME WERE FILED BY HIS EARLIER CONSULTANT SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA WITH EVIL I NTENTION TO TROUBLE THE ASSESSEE WITH FORGED SIGNATURES. THE SAID SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA HAD DONE A SIMILAR MISCHIEF EVEN IN CASE OF SOME OTHER COLLEAGUES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WERE ALSO THE AGENTS OF M/S. GOLDEN TR UST FINANCIAL SERVICES. IN CASES OF SOME OF SUCH COLLEAGUES, THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICERS HAD ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEES AF TER APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAD IGNORED THE RETURNS FILED BY SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA. THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE, HO WEVER, WERE NOT APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RIGHT P ERSPECTIVE AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY HIM AT HIGH PITCHED FIGURE O F RS.1,08,35,260/- AS DECLARED BY SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA IN THE FORGED RETU RN WITHOUT VERIFYING THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE, FIGURES REFLECTED IN 26AS AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 8 REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON THE FIGURES REF LECTED IN FORM NO. 26AS WHICH DID NOT SUPPORT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO DID NOT CONTROVERT ANY FACTS AFFIRMED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON OATH IN THE AFFIDAVIT. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IGNORE BOTH THE RETURNS FILED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2013 AND 26.09.2013 BY SHRI ABHIS HEK SHARMA AND TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME AS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 06.05.2014 AS THE SAID RETURN WAS THE ONLY RETURN, WHICH DISCLOSED TH E TRUE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE REVENUE. 11. AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE WHIL E DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED ACCORD INGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 25, 2 019. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE -PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DURGAPUR-713216 (2) SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O. BIJOY KUMAR SINGH, SIDULI, 5 NO. BAURI PARA, KORA PARA, KHANDRA, ANDAL, DURGAPUR-713322 ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 & C.O. NO. 111/KOL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 420/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 SRI DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH 9 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-DURGAPUR, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.