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

Total Transport Systems Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3828/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

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…

K.Krishnaraj, Pollachi vs. ITO Ward I, Pollachi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 723/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.723/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri K. Krishnaraj, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Door No.120 (Old No.82), Ward-1, Main Road, Kinathukadavu, Pollachi. Pollachi – 642 109. Pan: Ayapk6947J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshisundram, Itp ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…e Madras High Court. He further submitted that levy of penalty is not compulsory in all cases, where an addition may be confirmed. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 and submitted that penalty is not a source of revenue, it is not automatic, penalty should not be levied simply because it is legal to do so. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. During the penalty proceedings, the following explanations were…

Kanti Beverages P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1379/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…his view of the matter in our considered opinion the assessee’s issue cannot be visited with the rigours of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view is supported by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (Supreme Court), wherein it was held that the penalty need not be levied if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious. In the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the assessee’s conduct is bonafide and assessee should not be visited with the rigours of penalty. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands all…

N Vensimal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.942/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. N Vensimal Securities Acit 4(3) Ltd., Mumbai 400020 37/41, Shahviri Building, V. Picket Road, Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn3305Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ratuja N. Pawar Revenue By: Shri. Jeetendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit-A Dated 11.11.2011 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Of Appal Read As Under:- A.) Grounds Of Appeal 1.) The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals 9 Has Erred In Confirming The Assessing Officer'S Order Of Penalty Of Rs. 27,92,664/- Being The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Without Considering The Factual Position & The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Ms. Ratuja N. PawarFor Respondent: Shri. Jeetendra Kumar (DR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee in these circumstances cannot be said to be contumacious warranting to visit by the rigours of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 10. In this regard we draw support from the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. In this case larger bench of the Supreme Court had held that the authority may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. Furthermore honourable Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers had held that penalty may not be levied for the bona-fide mistake. 11. In the background of aforesaid discussion a…

M/S. Shree Sai Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri N.R.BiswalFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 156Section 269SSection 271D

…sessing Officer found that all the transactions are genuine and did not point out any discrepancy or irregularity or perversity therein. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26(SC), ld A.R. submitted that when the Assessing Officer after verification of books of account of the assessee pertaining to all transactions have not pointed out any discrepancy then no allegation cannot be held as sustainable. Ld A.R. has also placed reliance on various decisions including decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CI…

Shri P. Sundaramurthy, Chennai vs. JCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2730/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Shri. P. Sundaramurthy, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No.19, Mariamman Koil Street, Income Tax, Manjini Nagar, Pondicherry Range, Puducherry 605 003. Pondicherry. [Pan Aasps 2879P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…is further submitted that when the genuineness of the transaction was accepted mere technical violation of law does not entail levy of penalty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. ITA No.2730/CHNY/2016. :- 5 -: The Assessing Officer considered the explanation offered and held that intention of the parties are clear to conceal the income and assessee failed to establish business exigencies in accepting the loan in cash as well as repayment of loan in cash, therefore proceeded with levy of penalty of "12,00,000/- vide orde…

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 7.3 We further 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 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 i…

ITO 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hilti Manufacturing India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A)

ITA 3603/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3603/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ITO-10(1)(1) M/s. Hilti Manufacturing Vs. Room No. 25 India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor (Previously know as Aayakar Bhavan Bhukhanwala Diamond M.K. Road Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Koteshwar Palace CHS Jiva mahale Marg Koldongri Lane No. 4 Opp. Lane HSBC Bank Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 069. PAN : AADCB2566L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth Department by Shri S. Senthil Kumar Date of Hearing 13.6.2019 Date of Pronouncement 2.8.2019…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…Tax (A) and the same deserves to be upheld. 10. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, 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 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 i…

Hiteshkumar Valjibhai Kyada, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…ing number of times and furnished the various details called for. Ultimately, the matter was finalized and the returned income was accepted. Further, our reference was drawn to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that the penalty should not be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or 3 Shri Hiteshkumar Valjibhai Kyadashna, Surat Vs. ITO, Surat dishonest or acted in conscious disregards of its obligation. It was submitted that there is no such deliberate co…

Parthkumar Kaushikbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Viresh I. Rudalal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…ing number of times and furnished the various details called for. Ultimately, the matter was finalized and the returned income was accepted. Further, our reference was drawn to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that the penalty should not be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or 3 ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Bardoli dishonest or acted in conscious disregards of its obligation. It was submitted that there is…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Kamal Sethia, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…nion of India vs. Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. [2009] 180 Taxmann 609 (SC), CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011] 335 ITR 259/199 Taxmann. 255/11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC), Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Mumbai [2007] 161 Taxmann 218 (SC), Sudarshan Silk & Sarees vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC), CIT vs. S.D.V. Chandru [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.), CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124/[2002] 123 Taxman 1052 (MP), and CIT vs. Suraj Bhan [2007] 294 ITR 4…

Konel Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee cannot 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 Hindustan Steel 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. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the order’s of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the…

M/S.Kamdar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6589/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6589/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ M/S. Kamdar Private Ltd., Dcit 1(2), Ground Floor, Industrial 5Th Floor, Ayakar Assurance Building, J Tata Bhavan, Mumbai V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaack3308G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. J.P Vairagi Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit-A Dated 21.09.2017 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds For Appeal Is That The Learned Cit-A Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 7,83,991/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Leading To The Levy Of Penalty Are That Penalty Was Levied On Two Counts. One Issue Was The Claim Of Deprecation On The Premises Which Was Let Out. Assessee’S Submission

For Appellant: Shri. J.P VairagiFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…cedent in our considered opinion the assessee need not be visited with the rigours of penal provisions under section 271(1)(c). 8. In this regard we draw support from the larger bench of honourable apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that the authorities may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious. 9. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we set aside the order’s of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed Order pronounced in the open co…

Jayanti Super Construction, Patan vs. DCIT, Mehasana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1637/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1637/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh V.Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR

…alf of the assessee. A bonafide error or mistake does not necessarily invite penalty proceedings in every case. It will not be out of context to recollect the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that penalty cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. In the absence of any Jayanti Super Construction vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2014-15 intentional omission of the taxable income from the return of income as reasonably demonstrated on behalf of the assessee, we are disposed to hold that statutory discretion veste…

Income Tax Officer(It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr.Bruce Edward Neave, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1406/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

…adjusted. Hence, in our considered opinion action of the assessee is not contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26). Further Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pricewater House Coopers P. Ltd. Vs. CIT vide order dated 26.9.2012 has also expounded that assessee must not be visited with rigours of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for bonafide mistake. 7. In the background of the above discussion and precedent, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) which delete th…

Kalim Munit Khan, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)26, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…opinion assessee cannot be said to have acted contumacious manner so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In this regard we also draw support from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein a larger bench of Hon'ble Apex Court had expounded that the authority may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee has not been 4 Mr. Kalim Munir Khan found to be contumacious. Accordingly in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 9…

Sri.Anil Kumar L, Kollam vs. The ITO, WD-1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 393/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheer AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.393/Coch/2018 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 Sri. Anil Kumar L The Income Tax Officer Margin Free Market Vs. Ward 1 Chavara, Kollam. Alappuzha. PAN : AGEPA6959N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sudheer Abraham Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Date of Hearing : 24.04.2018 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order dated 11.06.2018. The rel…

M/S. S.N.G. Developers Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 4336/DEL/2016[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 S.N.G. Developers Ltd., Vs Jcit (Tds), 112, Indraprakash Building, Range-51, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aafcs8465B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th June, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-41, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,26,400/- U/S 272A(2)(K) By The Jcit & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Filed Its E-Tds Return For F.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273BSection 274(1)

…vs. Addl.CIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad, ITA Nos.3246 & 3247/Ahe/2015, dated February 3, 2016; ii) Income-Tax officer, Ward 49(1), vs. Amcon Engineers (P) Ltd., ITA No.2253 & 2254/Del/2011, dated June 29,2012; iii) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); and iv) Investascent Wealth Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Bangalore). 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that as mentioned by the ld.CIT(A), the delay was of 2264 number of days cumulatively and it reveals a willful attempt on the part of the assessee for non- compliance of the…

Rajesh Bansal, Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1447/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pritish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 200(3)Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

…+* आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी ”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sh.Rajesh Bansal, The Addl.CIT(TDS), बनाम SCO 65, Sector 17C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO.PTLR10561F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pritish Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of…