TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 1978-79 to 1984-85 ?" The assessment years involved are 1978-79 to 1984-85. The assessee is an individual and was working as a cashier in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam. The Assessing Officer received certain information from Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., that the assessee had misappropriated funds from the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 55 lakhs during the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85. On the basis of the information obtained, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire amount of Rs. 55,00,000 spread over the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85, on the ground that the misappropriation of funds was confirmed by the employer-Corporation and the assessee was presumed to be in possession of the funds as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred by the Revenue. The Revenue filed applications before the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question set out in paragraph 1. The Appellate Tribunal held that its conclusion on the facts of the case did not give rise to a question of law. It is this order that is the subject-matter of the present tax case petitions. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in deleting the entire additions. According to him, the assessee had misappropriated funds from the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 55 lakhs and the assessee was having some properties in the name of his mother, Mangalathammal, and the properties were held by her as a benami of the assessee. Though notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in law. That apart, we hold that even if the amount is said to be embezzled, the assessee is duty bound to return the money to the employer-Corporation. Hence, the market value of the embezzled money would be "nil" in the hands of the assessee on the relevant valuation dates. We are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal, has come to the correct conclusion in holding that the additions made by the Wealth-tax Officer were not correct. Though in the petitions, there is a reference to a judgment of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, in O. S. No. 83 of 1984, dated December 23, 1985, a copy of the said judgment was not placed before us. Further, there is also reference to the properties acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
