2013 (5) TMI 132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Petitioner filed its returns of income for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2007-08 and returned the following loss:- Assessment year Returned Income/Loss Rupees in crores. 2004-05 (-) Rs.545.69 2005-06 (-) Rs.462.08 2006-07 (-) Rs.327.75 2007-08 (-) Rs. 293.51 The Assessing Officer passed orders of assessment for the aforesaid assessment years by which the loss was redetermined as follows: Assessment Year Date of Order Assessed Income/Loss Rupees in crores 2004-05 27.08.2007 (-) Rs.495.50 2005-06 31-12-2007 (-) Rs.407.16 2006-07 06-11-2009 (-) Rs.282.86 2007-08 07-12-2009 (-) Rs.241.20 The asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Petitioner filed a stay application before the CIT-10. The application has been disposed of by directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand amounting to Rs.8.85 crores by 7 March 2013. 4. The contentions of the Petitioner before the Court are the following: (i) The Petitioner is a Public Sector Corporation formed by the Union Government together with the State Governments of Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala and Karnataka. In view of the financial difficulties faced by the Petitioner, the Board of Directors together with the Union Ministry of Railways had approached the Board for Reconstruction for Public Sector Enterprises (BRPSE) with a financial restructuring proposal. After the proposal was recommended by the BRPSE, a propos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the first appeal is disposed of whichever is earlier. The record before the Court indicates that there was no failure or inaction on the part of the Petitioner in pursuing the first appeals which are pending. As a matter of fact, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to proceed with the hearing of the appeals immediately, with a view to establishing before the appellate authority that a case was not made out for imposition of penalty. Since the recovery of demand was initially stayed, though for a specified period, that itself indicates that the CIT was of the view that the issues which have been raised by the Petitioner deserve serious consideration. The fact that the appeals have not....