Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26Supreme Court of India1972#134 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 371,239 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

Balwan Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Range-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2383/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271DSection 271E

…ji Traders, (2008) 167 Taxman 27 (Mad); CIT vs. Laxmi Trust Co., (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); DCIT vs. Vignesh Flat Housing, (2007) 105 ITD 359 (Chennai); Dillu Cine Enterprises vs. CIT, (2002) 80 ITD 484 (Hyd); Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) Says in corus that the breach of Sections 269SS and 269T for receipt/repayment of cash attributable to business exigencies is a I.T.A. No.2383/Del/2019 5 mere technical or venial breach. The assessee has shown existence of reasonable cause in accepting/repayment of cash to meet the immediate business requirements. In our view, mitigating circ…

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…, the ends of justice requires that discretion should not be exercised in favour of punishing a minor default and for the aforesaid proposition we get support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to a…

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…, the ends of justice requires that discretion should not be exercised in favour of punishing a minor default and for the aforesaid proposition we get support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to a…

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…, the ends of justice requires that discretion should not be exercised in favour of punishing a minor default and for the aforesaid proposition we get support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to a…

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…, the ends of justice requires that discretion should not be exercised in favour of punishing a minor default and for the aforesaid proposition we get support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to a…

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…, the ends of justice requires that discretion should not be exercised in favour of punishing a minor default and for the aforesaid proposition we get support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or were the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to a…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner of Shri Chandrakant G. Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Patel, 401/402, Ratnam Ahmedabad Tower, Nr. Chief Vs Justice Bunglow, (Appellant) Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACPPP9429B (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 08-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-…

S. Narayanan (HUF), Karaikudi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 513/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: None
Section 139Section 271Section 271F

…etion of assessment is untenable in law. 5. The CIT(A), in any event, ought to have seen that the returned income having been accepted, the delay in filing the return constituted a venial breach and thus applied the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Steels (83 ITR 26) and cancelled the penalty levied on the assessee.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: For year under consideration assessee did not file his return of income before the due date that is 31/07/2016 or even by 31/03/2017, and subsequently, penalty was levied u/s. 271F of the Act vide order dated 05/03/2020. 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO,…

Ms. Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Baroda vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1623/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…e present in any particular case, the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 9.4 In this regard we find pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), where it was observed 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 was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard…

The University of Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Addl. Dir. of Income Tax-(Exempition)-RG.-2, Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1465/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

For Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 104Section 143Section 148Section 272A(2)(e)

…enalty need be levied when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) Respected Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals is hereby requested to delete the penalty levied by learned A.O. u/s 272(A)(2)(e) of I.T. Act, 1961 in the light of above submissions. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) did not advert to any of the case laws or the reasonable cause of delay attributed by the assessee.He proceeded to hold that if the assessee was…

ITO - 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Harnish D. Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 181/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…annot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26),where in it was held that the authority may no t levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 6. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sa…

It Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hitesh Babulal Kanti, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…annot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26),where in it was held that the authority may no t levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 6. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sa…

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh Ramanbhai Barot, Mumbai

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 160/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
Section 27Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…annot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), where in it was held that the authority may no t levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sales…

Mgm Minerals Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2 M.G.M. Minerals Ltd., 2-A, Forest Vs. Acit (Tds- -1), Park, Bhubaneswar. Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcm 2818 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl. Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10 10/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.2.2015 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl
Section 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

…Ld A.R. referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 362 ITR 233 (Mad) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) to supports this contention. Further, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC); 163 TAXMAN 355(SC), there cannot be tax twice and hence no tax be demanded. He submitted that as the assessee has complied with the spirit of the law as per provisions under…

M/S. M.G.Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT(TDS)-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.Mohanty., 2 ., 2-A, Forest Park, Vs. Acit (Tds- -1), Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaffm 2127 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl. Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10 10/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.2.2015 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl
Section 206(1)(C)Section 206(7)Section 206CSection 206C(6)

…Ld A.R. referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 362 ITR 233 (Mad) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) to supports this contention. Further, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), there cannot be tax twice and hence no tax be demanded. He submitted that as the assessee has complied with the spirit of the law as per provisions under Section 206C of the…

Vaidic Shiksha Samiti, Narnaul vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6050/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. DharampalFor Respondent: Sh. Govind Singhal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 272A(2)(e)

…nusandhan vs. JCIT in ITA No. 146 and 147/RPR/2014 in which the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 252 ITR 471 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. the state of Orissa 83 ITR 26 were followed. Further it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s Bhagwan Parshuram Siksha Samiti in appeal No. 169/2012-13 by order dated 21/8/2018 accepted the very same cause and deleted the penalty. Ld. DR place heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions…

Vaidic Shiksha Samiti, Narnaul vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6049/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. DharampalFor Respondent: Sh. Govind Singhal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 272A(2)(e)

…nusandhan vs. JCIT in ITA No. 146 and 147/RPR/2014 in which the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan, 252 ITR 471 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. the state of Orissa 83 ITR 26 were followed. Further it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s Bhagwan Parshuram Siksha Samiti in appeal No. 169/2012-13 by order dated 21/8/2018 accepted the very same cause and deleted the penalty. Ld. DR place heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions…

Telangana State Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Range-3, Vijayawada

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1530/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…re are no transactions required to be filed. 5. In the first appeal to CIT (appeals) the assessee pleaded that penalty to be waived. The assessee placed the reliance on the Honourable Supreme Court's decision in the case of Hindustan Steels Vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 Where it was held that penalty should :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 not be imposed merely it is lawful to do so and Venial breaches should not be visited with penalties Even though the assessee being a State Government entity and the case being the technical nature, the CIT (Appeals) has ignored the plea made by the assesse, even the Tax…

Telangana State Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Range-3, Vijayawada

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1529/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…re are no transactions required to be filed. 5. In the first appeal to CIT (appeals) the assessee pleaded that penalty to be waived. The assessee placed the reliance on the Honourable Supreme Court's decision in the case of Hindustan Steels Vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 Where it was held that penalty should :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 not be imposed merely it is lawful to do so and Venial breaches should not be visited with penalties Even though the assessee being a State Government entity and the case being the technical nature, the CIT (Appeals) has ignored the plea made by the assesse, even the Tax…

Telangana State Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Range-3, Vijayawada

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1528/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

…re are no transactions required to be filed. 5. In the first appeal to CIT (appeals) the assessee pleaded that penalty to be waived. The assessee placed the reliance on the Honourable Supreme Court's decision in the case of Hindustan Steels Vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 Where it was held that penalty should :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 not be imposed merely it is lawful to do so and Venial breaches should not be visited with penalties Even though the assessee being a State Government entity and the case being the technical nature, the CIT (Appeals) has ignored the plea made by the assesse, even the Tax…