TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up three cross-objections filed by the assessee. An identical ground is raised by the assessee in these three cross-objections which reads as under : "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the entire basis for the additions made in the course of reopening of assessment viz., embezzlement by the assessee is incorrect as the charge of embezzlement framed by the concerned Department has been quashed by the order of State Public Services Tribunal which has also been approved by the jurisdictional High Court and therefore the additions made in the order of reopening of assessment are unsustainable in law." 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that in these three ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in the bank and made addition of the same. The entire addition in all the three years was deleted by the learned CIT(A) on the basis that embezzlement amount does not become the income of the employee who had made embezzlement. Now, in the cross-objection, it is the claim of the assessee that charge of embezzlement framed by the concerned Department has been quashed by the order of the State Public Services Tribunal which has also been approved by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and hence, the very basis of making the addition does not survive. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 as per the judgment dated 23-7-2009. This judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has also been furnished before us by the learned Authorised Representative. In the judgment, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that the order of punishment has not (sic) been set aside by the Tribunal being satisfied that no charge is made out against the respondent No. 2 i.e., the assessee before us. It is also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that this is not the finding of the Tribunal that he was not guilty of any charge. The charge remained to be considered afresh. It was held by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow that the opposite party i.e., employer will be at liberty to conduct the inquiry against the p....