9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in favor of assessee - SA Nos. 101& 89/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 853 & 852/Mum/2018 ) - - - Dated:- 27-4-2018 - Shri G. S. Pannu, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Applicant by : Shri J.D. Mistry Shri Niraj Respondent by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop ORDER Per G.S. Pannu, AM The captioned are two stay applications preferred by the assessee with respect to stay on the disputed demand raised for assessment years 2007- 08 and 2009-10 as a consequence of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (hereinafter the Act ) amounting to ₹ 137,17,36,837/- and ₹ 113,48,15,207/-. 2. By referring to the application for A.Y. 2007-08 the learned counsel for the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was explained that by the time the dispute travelled to the Tribunal, the Government of Maharashtra, vide a notification dated 31st March, 2016, amended the original Maharashtra State Electricity Reforms Scheme, 2005 and took over the loan liabilities of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board from the assessee with retrospective effect from June, 2005. The learned A.R. pointed out that this aspect was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and as a consequence, in its order dated 21.04.2017 in the quantum appeal proceedings the changed scenario, arising out of taking over of the loan liability of Maharashtra State Electricity Board by the State government was noticed, and it was held that the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that matter referred to the order dated 06.03.2018 rejecting assessee s stay application. It has been pointed out that the merit of unsustainability of the penalty has not at all been considered by the AO and in fact the assessee has paid a substantial portion of the outstanding demand and in spite of that the AO has noticed that the assessee was not prepared to make part payment of demand. Be that as it may, it has been pointed out that for A.Y. 2007-08 out of the total outstanding demand of ₹ 137,17,36,837/- an amount of ₹ 52,53,51,798/- has been paid and similarly for A.Y. 2009-10 out of the outstanding demand of ₹ 113,48,15,207/- a sum of ₹ 10 crores has been paid. The prayer of the appellant is to hear the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the merits of the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act but merely went by the subsequent notification of the State Government and the claim for deduction of interest expenditure while calculating the final taxable income was removed. The aforesaid aspect regarding the efficacy of the levy of penalty is a substantive arguable point for the assessee, though it shall be addressed as and when the matter comes up before the regular Bench in the course of hearing of the corresponding appeals. 6. Be that as it may, considering the overall facts, especially the fact that the assessee has made significant payments out of the total outstanding demand, we deem it fit and appropriate to direct as under: - (i) that the AO shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
