2014 (4) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtaining to the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-2001, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the revenue. 2. The appeals before the Tribunal were arising from the orders, all dated 24th June 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, CIT (A)) whereby the CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee against the order of assessing officer dated 26th March, 2002. 3. Though the revenue has framed three substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeals, we have reframed the questions, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The questions on which we have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have dealt with, read as follows:   ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med, by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, that the respondent-assessee initiated criminal as well as civil action against the said Manager. We are, however, not concern with the same for deciding the present appeals. 4.1. The respondent-assessee had filed original return of income on 16-3-1998 assessing total income of Rs.31,480/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, a survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act on the assessee's business premises. In the survey, it appears, some incriminating documents were recovered on the basis of which a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 11-10-1999. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed revised ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the part of the order passed by the CIT (A), the revenue filed four appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue holding that the amount of Rs.1,61,23,950/- never reached the assessee, as had been misappropriated by the said manager, and hence it has to be treated as an application of income. This finding of the Tribunal, was contrary to the admission given by the assessee in the revised return for all the four assessment years. As indicated above, the assessee itself, for all the four assessment years, together had offered Rs.1,61,23,950/- as additional income. There is no material on record to show that this amount and the misappropriated amount is one and....