JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. R. L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 12-4-2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal bench at Indore (for short "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 548/Ind/2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 12-7-2012 passed by the CIT (Appeals). 3. Briefly stated, the respondent assessee had entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with Dena Bank for the loan outstanding against it. Dena Bank waived the amount of Rs. 88.39 lakhs and interest to the extent of Rs. 31.18 lakhs out of total outstanding which was Rs. 289.58 lakhs as on 31-3-2006. This OTS was subject to condition that payment of 25% of the compromise amount will be made by the respondent upto 31-8-2006 and the balance amount of Rs. 148.75 lakhs will be paid in 36 months' instalments commencing from September, 2006. The Assessing Officer treated the component principal amount of Rs. 88.39 lakhs, which was waived as income in the hands of the assessee by holding that the assessee has earned this waived amount, and as such brought this amount for tax. 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made at Rs. 88.39 lakhs. The order passed by the CIT (Appeals) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, maintained the order of CIT (Appeals). Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is before this Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and after going through the orders of the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has committed error in treating the amount waived by the Bank to be the amount earned by the assessee. The principal amount of loan being never claimed by the assessee as its expenditure, its waiver will not amount to income of the assessee and as such, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal affirming the order of CIT (Appeals). 7. The principal amount of loan being never claimed by the assessee as its expenditure, its waiver will not amount to income of the assessee and as such, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal affirming the order of CIT (Appeals). 7. No question of law arises in the matter. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.