2022 (9) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aside the order, whereby penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The following question of law has been proposed for our consideration : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in law deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Offcer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act thereby ignoring the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 3. Briefy stated the material facts are as under : (a) The assessee fled its return of income for the relevant assessment year 2008-09 declaring a total business loss of Rs.1,75,537/-. Later on, a revised return was fled declaring a total loss of Rs.6,71,20,385/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and necessary orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... earlier, and therefore, while allowing the appeal fled by the assessee, it reversed the decision of the CIT(A). 4. It would be pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (Supra) held : "24 In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other Income Tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister company (which is a subsidiary of the assessee) as a measure of commercial expediency, and if it was, it should have been allowed." 5. This judgment was also followed by this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the ratio of the judgment in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (Supra) was being reconsidered as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. in its order dated 30th April 2012, it was not open to the Tribunal to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that the question of law which has been proposed for consideration by the revenue in the present appeal, in fact, would not get affected by the ultimate decision that might be rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned two matters pending before it as making unsustainable claim could neither amount to concealment nor amount to furnishing ina....