How many judgments cite Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa?

502 judgments on BharatTax cite Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 273B, Section 142(1), Section 271(1)(b), Section 272A(1)(d), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

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 273B Section 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 273 section 273b section 272a section 271e section 271c section 271b section 271f section 271d section 271(1)(b)section 271aa levy of penalty section 271a

Judgments citing Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

Messrs Champak Industries, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6603/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 6603/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 6604/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/s. Champak Industries DCIT Circle-19(1) Vs. 390/392, Shankar Matru Mandir Mansion, S.V.P. Road Tardeo Road Vanita Vishram Chowk Mumbai-40007. Mumbai-400 004. PAN : AACFC7672E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Akash Kumar Department by Shri R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing 09.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the assessee is directed against respective or…

Smt. Harichandran Kaleeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Range - 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2216/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate

Section 148Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act only on 29.3.2015 and on that date, the audit report was very much available with the Assessing Officer. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa [reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26], considered the validity of levy of penalty under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. One of the questions, which was framed for consideration was as to whether imposition of penalty for failure to register as a dealer was justified. The Hon’ble Apex Court pointed out that the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof…

Smt. Harichandran Kaleeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Range - 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2215/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate

Section 148Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

Rashid K. Nurani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(5), Ahmedabad

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 758/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.758/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Rashid K. Nurani Ito, Ward-6(1)(5) 36,N3 Shiv Shakti Estate Ahmedabad. Vs Opp: Kashiram Textile Mill Narol, Ahmedabad 382 405

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Sadhwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA.No.758/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Rashid K. Nurani ITO, Ward-6(1)(5) 36,n3 Shiv Shakti Estate Ahmedabad. Vs Opp: Kashiram Textile Mill Narol, Ahmedabad 382 405 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Sadhwani, AR Revenue by : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal aga…

Shaheen M Mujawar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 742/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2009-10 Shaheen M. Mujawar Vs. ITO-26(3)(2), Mumbai Prabhatwadi Kurla Pipeline, (Respondent) Behind Sagar Heights, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400 072. PAN : AAHPM1303K (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue by : Ms. Bharti Singh Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06/02/2020 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 21.10.2016 and pertains to assessment y…

Mmj Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. JCIT (TDS), Range - 58, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 200Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

…al Bank vs. Addl. CIT [140 TTJ 622] vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [83ITR 26] 9. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [83 ITR 26], wherein the Court held as under: MMJ Exports Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 "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 contumacio…

Wsa Shipping Bombay Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4869/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4869/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin A. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

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

…conduct of the assessee is not contumacious so as to warrant visit by the rigours of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view is supported by the decision of the larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa Vs. (83 ITR 26). In this case it was expounded that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. In the present case we find that in one of the years assessee has duly submitted the reconciliation although at the appellate stage which were rejected by learned CIT(A) on the ground that he was not admitting…

Sybase Software (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 151/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.151/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 बनाम/ Sybase Software (I) P. Ltd., Acit, 4Th Floor, Platina, C-29, G Range – 10(1) Vs. Block, Bandra (E). Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs5015K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aliasger Rampurawala & Shri Pinal Chandramaniyam ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 03/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/12 /2019

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala &For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…considered opinion, the penalty in this regard is liable to be deleted. 7. In this regard, we place reliance from the Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and ITA No.151/Mum/2012. Sybase Software (I) P. Ltd .Mumbai penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumac…

Surgi Pack (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 49/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…n the authorities below are not justified in levying penalty on hyper technical ground, as the conduct of the assessee is not at all contumacious. We draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) that if the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious the authority can decline to levy penalty. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty. 8. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on…

Juvalia Sales P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 7201/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92Section 92BSection 92CSection 92DSection 92E

…were duly audited under section 44 AB of the Act, if a reasonable cause is shown by the assessee, no penalty could be levied or sustained. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 wherein it was 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 its…

M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1415/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 271GSection 273BSection 275Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…not sustainable because undisputedly assessee has submitted documents on the basis of which ld. TPO has proposed the adjustment and no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the Revenue. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) held that, “when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed the statue, the competent authority may not impose the penalty.” 17. So, we are of the considered you that though there is a delay on the part…

Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3510/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

…e full compliance of the detail called for vide summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, also the penalty deserves to be cancelled. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following cases :- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly & Page 14 of 29 ITA Nos.- 3510 & 3511/Del/2012 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) `C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) C.I.T. v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) (F.B.) Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 In all the above mentioned jud…

Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3511/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 272ASection 272A(1)(c)Section 273B

Shri Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Cent. Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…to each other. Therefore any addition made during the quantum proceedings does not give the authority to the Revenue to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, had laid down the position of law by holding that the Assessing Officer is not bound to levy penalty automatically simply because the quantum addition has been sustained. 6.2 Similarly the Hon’ble Supreme Court also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara reported in 83 ITR 369 has held that penalty cannot be levied solely Page 4 of 9 Asstt. Year 2005-06…

Sh. Manoj Agrawal, Gwalior vs. I.T.O.-2(2), Gwalior

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

ITA 297/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271B

…for the same default cannot be levied. h. In the case of Vamana Appanna& Sons Vs. ACIT (1996) 15 CCH 0325 (HybdTrib) the Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal following the Apex Court Judgement in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) held the similar view: "The assessee had advanced certain circumstances under which there was a delay in obtaining tax audit report and when this fact was not disputed there is no justification in levying penalty. Apart from that, the orders of this Tribunal filed in the paper-book relied upon by the counsel for the assessee supports the conte…

M/S. Jadaujewellers & Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 111/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 271A

…the books of account or documents. Further, it was submitted that levy of penalty u/s 271AAA is discretionary and not mandatory in nature. Further, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) and CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemical & Minerals Ltd [2003] 133 Taxman 320 (Raj). 9. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as of the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld DR that the ld. CIT(A)…

Shri Gyarsi Lal Choudhary, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neem Ka Thana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 991/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahela (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…return of income. Therefore, only due to a bonafide mistake the same could not be filed along with the return of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steels vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) as well as in case of CIT vs. CIT vs. Mathana Model Co-operative Credit & Service Society Ltd., 299 ITR 70. Thus the ld. A/R has contended that once the assessee has explained the cause of default and the same is bonafide and reasonable, then in view of the provisions of section 273B, no penalty is required to be levied. 4. On the other han…

Gourang Chandra Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-3, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 156Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Gourang Chandra Nayak, Plot Vs. JCIT, Range-3, Bhubaneswar. No.7, Adharsh Vihar, Lane-2, Phase-1, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAHPN 7112 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N.R.Biswal, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 24 /07/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23 /09/ 2019 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 12.9.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 2. The…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…e case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ” b) Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26: The Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that, “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasicriminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless th…

Bcd Travels India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(1) Earlier Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4161/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Bcd Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range 9(2)(1), Level 2, Office No.3-B, B-Wing, (Earlier Addl. Cit-8(1)), Times Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 012 Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaacf 1613 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Miss Nipur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Miss Nipur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

Section 10ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ucts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Furthermore, in our considered opinion, the assessee’s conduct is not contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. In this regard, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case State of Orissa vs. Hindustan Steel of 83 ITR 23. 3 M/s. BCD Travels India Pvt. Ltd. 7. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2019 (Sandeep Gosain) (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Accou…