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

Dilip Shashikant Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 4709/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35A

…ncealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 8. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the order's of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 9. In the result assessee's appeals are allowed. Order pronounced under rul…

Dilip Shashikant Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35A

…ncealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty, if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 8. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the order's of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 9. In the result assessee's appeals are allowed. Order pronounced under rul…

ITO Ward 3(3), Thane vs. M/S Singh Infrastructure Developers, Mumbai

In the result revenues 's appeal is dismissed

ITA 1258/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11
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. 5. 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…

Chandur B Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4597/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

…he Assessing Officer cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee deserves to be visited with regours of penalty u/.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Moreover, we also note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) through larger bench had expounded that the authorities may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submissions of the assessee and explanations are not ex facie bogus or contumacious. 9. As regards the issue of shortfall in the disclosur…

Shreenath Motors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 4379/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us.

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee's claim was ex facie bogus. Hence rejection of the said claim cannot warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Furthermore we find that a larger bench of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) has expounded that the authority may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the present case we are of the considered opinion that assessee’s conduct is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents, we set aside the orders of authoriti…

Chandrikaben K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2008-09
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…m cannot be said to be malafide. Hence, in our considered opinion the assessee’s conduct is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. In this regard we also rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), wherein the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the authority may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 7. In our considered opinion the assessee’s claim in this case was not ex- facie bogus. Hence, assessee’s conduct cannot said to be contumacious as the assessee has submitted all neces…

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the assessee in default as an offence, if it is proved that it was caused by willful failure. These are the three varying degrees of defaults and the statute clearly keeps up the distinction between the three modes. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [83 ITR 26) the Hon`ble Supreme Court observed that whether the penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all relevant circumstances and that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6th Floor 11th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN/GIR No.AAACT0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Ms. Hema Sharma Date of Hearing 18/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29/03/20…

Shri Ram Roop Singh, Burdwan vs. A.C.I.T., Range-45, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2264/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri A.T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2264/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Ram Roop Singh...............................……………….............................................................................Appellant B1/15, A.K. Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan – 713 204. [Pan: Atxps 6255 M] Vs. Acit, Range – 45, Kolkata …………………………….............................................................................Respondent Kolkata. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order January 6Th, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-6, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 6,54,118/- Levied By The Assessing Officer On The Assessee U/S 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Was A Petition For Adjournment Filed. Under The Circumstances, We Disposed Off The Case Ex-Parte On Merits Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative.

Section 250Section 271E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] I.T.A. No. 2264/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Ram Roop Singh...............................……………….............................................................................Appellant B1/15, A.K. Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan – 713 204. [PAN: ATXPS 6255 M] VS. ACIT, Range – 45, Kolkata …………………………….............................................................................Respondent Kolkata. Appearances by:…

Income Tax Officer-25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tushar Engineering Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5032/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Income Tax Officer-25(1)(5) M/S. Tushar Engineering Industries Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 9, Apurva Ind. Estate, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Makvana Road, Andheri (E), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aabft 0541 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar MenonFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

…aid 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 M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC), wherein it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 5. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced under ru…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2263/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2262/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2261/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2260/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2259/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2258/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals stand allowed

ITA 2257/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shriwaseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2257 To 2263/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2016-17) M/S Rungta Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Room No.301, Mangalan Building, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousi, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr5445F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 08.08.2019Arising Penalty Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016-17 U/S 271(1B)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter & Therefore We Have Heard The Ld. Dr & Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record Before Us. 3. The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1B) Of The Act Has Been Challenged By The Assessee For Non-Compliance Of The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2017 As It Appears From The Record & Also Submitted By The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 271

…instant case is called for. However the ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 ( SC) where it was held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “The Company supplied building material to the contractors at agreed rates. There was concurrence of the four elements which constitute a sale--(1) the parties were competent to contract; (2…

ITO WD 1(4), Thane vs. Smt Maya A. Rohra, Thane

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2773/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2020AY 2010-11
Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee in this case cannot be considered be contumacious warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is supported by the decision of honourable Supreme Court decision the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa Vs. (83 ITR 26). Moreover the Id counsel of the assessee has pointed out that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT vide circular no 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. 6. The Ld DR tried to mention that since the addition is based upon information from Sales tax Authority an outside agency the penalty can also considered to be so based and hence would fal…

Shri Samir H Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 26(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2749/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2009-10 Samir H. Doshi Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(3)(1), 24, Ramsharan, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai. (Respondent) Plot No. 45, Sion (West), Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aaqpd2202F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee in this case cannot be considered to be contumacious to warrant levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. This proposition is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC). 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on 17th November, 2020. (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Date : 17th November, 2020 *SSL* 3 Samir H. Doshi Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT(A) concerned 4) The CIT concerned 5) The D.R, “SMC” Benc…

M/S Klin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, 10(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2857/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)(c)

…urther note that the conduct of the assessee in this case cannot be considered to be contumacious warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This proposition is supported by the decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa Vs. (83 ITR 26). Hence, we set aside the order of the authorities below and delete the penalty. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 5. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 17.11.2020. (RAMLAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 17/11/2020 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The…