Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26Supreme Court of India1972#131 most cited

What is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa authority for?

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

502

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa · 83 ITR 26 SC · levy of penalty · quasi-criminal proceedings · statutory obligation default · deliberate defiance · contumacious conduct · dishonest conduct · conscious disregard · section 271(1)(c) · section 272A · section 273B

Sections most often in play

Section 273BSection 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 273section 273bsection 272asection 271esection 271csection 271bsection 271fsection 271dsection 271(1)(b)section 271aalevy of penaltysection 271a

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI

ITA 1523/BANG/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ajith V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR
Section 10(46)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…rther submitted that the AO had not made any addition on the returned income and therefore prayed to take a lenient view since the levy is against the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 83 ITR 26 in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. The only dispute involved in this appeal is that whether the penalty could be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances o…

AA522 KUNNATHUR VELAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3133/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 80P

…to agree with the contention that there is no deliberate non- compliance to respond to the notice by the assessee. It is relevant here to quote the below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)] – "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct, contumacious or…

SURESH RATILAL LODARIA,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 389/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Suresh Ratilal Lodaria Vs. IRO, wd – 2, C/o. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1st Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 20/A, Floor, Dr. Radha-krishna Road, Sector No. 8, Behind KPT-AO, Rajkumar Collage, Rajkot-360001 Building, Gandhigram - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABPL4571A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing…

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHAHJAHANPUR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ADDL/JDIT (I & CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 79/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 271FSection 285

…of The Motor & General Finance Limited vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi in ITA No. 841/DEL/2023. It also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2021-22 State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that a penalty would not ordinarily be imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of some misconduct or disregard of its obligations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held that penalty ought not to be imposed merely because it was lawful to do so and should not be l…

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHAHJAHANPUR,BSHAHJAHANPUR vs. ADDL / JDIT (I & CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 78/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 271FSection 285

…of The Motor & General Finance Limited vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi in ITA No. 841/DEL/2023. It also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2021-22 State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court had held that a penalty would not ordinarily be imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of some misconduct or disregard of its obligations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held that penalty ought not to be imposed merely because it was lawful to do so and should not be l…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,KUTCH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6090/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,ANJAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6089/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,KUTCH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6088/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,ANJAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6087/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,ANJAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6086/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,ANJAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

SHAMJI KANJI ZARU,ANJAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6084/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…nt view had been taken by various courts that penalty should not be levied for venial breach. In this connection reliance is being placed on the following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it has been held that: "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct. Shamji Kanji Zaru, Mumbai. Penalty will also not be impos…

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…treated as mala fide? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) is perverse in so much so as the CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) and in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2012], wherein the Apex Court has held that there would be no s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a "bona fide inadvertent human error", completely and grievously ignoring: (a) That, the assessee has claimed, in shape of depreciation, already reimbursed expense and this Act is deliberate not only in light…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…treated as mala fide? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) is perverse in so much so as the CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) and in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2012], wherein the Apex Court has held that there would be no s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a "bona fide inadvertent human error", completely and grievously ignoring: (a) That, the assessee has claimed, in shape of depreciation, already reimbursed expense and this Act is deliberate not only in light…

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

…consequently, the impugned penalty order passed for the venial and assumed technical breach deserves to be cancelled having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED V. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 83 ITR 26 [SC]. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied is highly excessive and liable to be reduced substantially. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the a…

MIDHUN KRISHNAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.730/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Midhun Krishnan, The Income Tax Officer, Tc 26/1520, Sakthi Nivas, Vs. Ward-1(2), Rishimangalam, Trivandrum. Vanchiyoou, Trivandrum – 695 035. Pan: Bbepk 8886L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kmv Pandalai, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri KMV Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 54

…tion, and source of funds are accepted, and there is no intention to evade tax, penalty u/s 271D should not be imposed. Section 271D is not meant to punish technical or venial breaches but only serious violations with mala fide intent (Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court Midhun Krishnan :- 4 -: in the cases of Ajitnath Hitech Builders 416 ITR 316 and Triumph International Finance, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5746 OF 2010 dated 12.06.2012 has held that where genuineness of transaction was never questioned and acceptance of cash was due to commercial or practical compulsion, courts have…

S.R. RAVISHANKAR,CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1085/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Acit, No.80, 1St Main Road, Central Circle – 2(4), Chamarajpet, Bengaluru- 560018. Bangalore. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271A

…lty would be consequential and only computation of the quantum was to be done by the AO as in the case of levy of interest and fee u/s 234A to E. (Emphasis supplied) Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner [83 ITR 26] (Page no 149 – 157 of paper book), held that a penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority will be justified in not imposing penalty where the breach is merely technical or is based upon the bona fide belief that a particular provision has been complied with. The Suprem…

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3615/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Income Tax – 5(1)(1) बनाम Pvt. Ltd., Fc 7081 7082, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G- Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd6676J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT-DR)
Section 271GSection 92Section 92D

…nalty should be imposed is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). The discretionary power under the penalty provisions is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well- established principles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 7.3 We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations find ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the ld.CIT(A). Also, we respectfully follow the…

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

…3 of the Paper Book), defended orders of the Authorities below and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties at length and have perused the material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 has held that an order-imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation.…

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

…3 of the Paper Book), defended orders of the Authorities below and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties at length and have perused the material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 has held that an order-imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation.…

Showing 1–20 of 502 · Page 1 of 26

...