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

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehara (JCIT)

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ee as is evident from the submission extracted at Para 2.2 of the order. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty without application of mind. 5.2 The ld AR further placed reliance on the following cases:- • Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) • CIT Vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. (2001) 119 Taxman 258 (P&H) (HC) • APL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2014) 62 SOT 91 (Mum.) (Trib.) In view of above, it was submitted that the penalty imposed by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material av…

M/S Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6140/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

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

…penalty may in his discretion choose not to levy a penalty in appropriate cases notwithstanding existence of such a default, contravention, breach or omission. This general principle was stated by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa [1992} 83 ITR 26 in the following words: 9 [Type the document title] Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether, 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 consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum…

Shri Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 109/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke Shri Neeraj Purohit The JCIT Vs. A-153, Man-Darpan, Nehru Nagar Range-4 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGSPP 2842 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Manish Agarwal jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by:Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR lquokbZ dh rkjh…

Alpex Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…hed by him is found false, penalty may be imposed. 5. We have heard the rival submission and have also perused the material on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC), 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. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that penalty cannot be levied solely on 4 basis of reasons g…

Mahadeo Bhagvan Chavan, Navi Mumbai vs. DIT (I & Ci), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 7360/MUM/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon'Ble**

For Appellant: ShriRajkumar G. Tonali–CA. Department By : Shri Virendra Singh – DRFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh – DR

Section 271FSection 285B

…## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI "I" BENCH, MUMBAI** ## **BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI Dr. A.L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER** **ITA No. 7360 & 5565/MUM/2016 (Asst. Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16)** Mahadeo Bhagavan Chavan, Sub-Registrar Thane-6, Kokan Bhavan, 1st Floor, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai vs. Director of Income Tax (I & CI),Earnest House, 12th Floor, Mumbai – 21 TAN No. MUMS50147G (Appellant) (Respondent) > Assessee by : ShriRajkumar G. Tonali–CA. Department By : Shri Virendra Singh – DR Date of hearing : 20/06/2018. Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2018. ## **…

Mahadeo Bhagavan Chavan, Navi Mumbai vs. DIT (I & Ci), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee (ITA No

ITA 5565/MUM/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon'Ble**

For Appellant: ShriRajkumar G. Tonali–CA. Department By : Shri Virendra Singh – DRFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh – DR

Section 271FSection 285B

Rajib Dey, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(4), Hooghly

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

ITA 1075/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1075/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rajib Dey Vs. Ito, Ward 24(4),Hooghly Village Kayapat, P.O. Badanganj, P.S. Goghat, Dist – Hooghly 712122. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Adapd 2615 H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…e. The technical and venial breach on the part of Chartered Accountant of the assessee, the assessee cannot be penalized. For the aforesaid reason, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26(SC) wherein it was held as under: “5. Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: s. 9(1), r/w s. 25(1) (a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a q…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Marksans Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7278/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), M/S Marksans Pharma Room No.216-A, Limited, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Vs. M.K. Road, Desai, Extension Road, Mumbai-400020 Andehri (West), Mumbai-400053 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaact3153G C.O. No.102/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7278/Mum/2016 ) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Marksans Pharma Dcit-10(2)(2), Limited, Room No.216-A, बनाम/ 11Th Floor, Grandeur Veer Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Desai, Extension Road, M.K. Road, Andehri (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6057A

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…al fiction, therefore, the disallowance made simply invoking the provision will not attract penalty for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (Supreme Court) supports our view, wherein, it was held that ‘the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justify in refusing the penalty where there is a technical or venial breach of provision or where the breach flows from a bon-fide belief that offender is not liable to act in a manner prescribed by a statute’. The case of the as…

Shujat Dilawar Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4441/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4441/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shujat Dilawar Sayed, Ito-21(3)(2) & Cit(A)-38, Prop: S. R. Engineering Corporation, Mumbai बनाम/ 14-C, Kurla Industrial Estate, Narayan Nagar, Off: Lbs Marg, Vs. N. S. Road, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahzps 4912 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.04.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Amounting To Rs.32,200/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I. T. Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…cted by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the conduct of the assessee was also not contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty on the touchstone of exposition of a larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 6. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. प"रणामतः "नधा"रती क" अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2018 (R…

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 188/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 271BSection 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 619(2)

…or default. In the present case there was a reasonable cause for delay in conducting the audit u/s 44AB and therefore, penalty u/s 271B is not leviable. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases:- • Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) • RSEB vs. ITAT & Anr. (2003) 262 ITR 262 (Raj.) (HC) • RCDF vs. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 126 (Raj.)(HC) • Gemorium vs. ITO (2016) 48 CCH 147 (Jaipur) (Trib.) • Kripa Industries (I) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2001) 20 CCH 387 (Pune)(Trib.) 6 M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 10. It is noted that a similar issue has…

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1022/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (JCIT)

Section 271BSection 44ASection 92E

…for the failure of the assessee to comply with the provision of the Act. 9. In this regard we place reliance from the Apex Court decisions 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 its…

Munshi Mini Rice Mill, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 146/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Munshi Mini Rice Mill V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Ward-2(2), Aayakar Associates, Advocates, Bhawan, G.T. Road, “Sebenbrothers” Lodge, Khadina More, P.O. P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, P.S/. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, Chinsurahk,, Dist. Pin 712105 Hooghly, Pin 712 101 [Pan No.Aaffm 1149 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.01.2017. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-24(2), Hooghly U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 27.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Vide Dated 112.11.2014. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reproduced Below:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate That None Of The Condition Precedent Required To Be Satisfied For The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.274 Read With S. 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Existed And/Or Have Been Complied With And/Or Fulfilled In The Instant Case By The Ld. Income Tax

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…t be held that the default committed by the assessee was willful. Thus, we are inclined not to uphold the order of lower authorities. 6.1 Similarly, we also find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) has held that the penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under : “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 contu…

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri. V.G Ginde and ShriramFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 2063/Mum/2014 AY: 2004-05 Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF Vs. ITO-14(2)(2). IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, HUF ITO, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AAAHS9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : S/Shri. V.G Ginde and Shriram Bajaj प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : Shri. V. Justin सुनवाई की तायीख / : 22…

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 271BSection 44A

…ee as is evident from the submission extracted at Para 2.2 of the order. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty without application of mind. 5.2 The ld AR further placed reliance on the following cases:-  Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC)  CIT Vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. (2001) 119 Taxman 258 (P&H) (HC)  APL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2014) 62 SOT 91 (Mum.) (Trib.) In view of above, it was submitted that the penalty imposed by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 6. The ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon the…

Shri Jagteswar Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

…to in the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In this regard it would be prudent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26, wherein it was held that 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. We also note that the assessment proceeding has been framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the AO himself in the assess…

Sachin Manohar Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

ITA 3767/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Sachin Manohar Deshmukh Acit-10(2), बिधम/ Man Sneh Bungalow, P.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Deshmukhwadi Complex New Marine Lines, Vs. Mulund, (W), Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400080 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpd1129L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Saparia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…ng of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as contemplated under Sec. 274(1) of the Act. We may herein observe that as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, therefore, not loosing sight of the said material observation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it becomes all the more obligatory on the part of the A.O to fairly discharge his statutory duty of clearly putting the assessee to…

D.R.K. Construction, Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 200(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 271HSection 272A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1151/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 D.R.K. Construction, ………. अपीलाथ" / M.No.1505, Shere, Tal. Karad, Appellant Satara 415110. PAN : AAFFD3148K. बनाम v/s Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / (TDS) Range, Pune. Respondent Assessee by : None. Revenue by : Shri Vivek Aggarwal. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12.03.2018. Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CH…

Rishab Steel ( House), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1657/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Rishab Steel (House) Asst. Cit – 15(2), बनाम/ 101/102, Rishab House, Mumbai 301, Duncan Road, M A Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfr 2807 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. M. Porwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 04.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Of Rs.100000/- Under Section 221(1) Of The Act. Provisions Of The Act Ought To Have Been Properly Construed & Regard Being Had To Facts Of The Case No Such Penalty Should Have Been Levied. Reasons Assigned By Him Are Insufficient To Justify Levy Of Penalty Under Section 221(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 220Section 221(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…mitted that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in not paying the demand. Furthermore, the ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) for the proposition that penalty need not to be levied if conduct of the assessee is found to be not contumacious. 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have carefully considered the matter and perused the records. We find that section 221(1) under which penalty has been le…

Manavkumar M. Mehta ( HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1) (Erstwhile), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7209/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Manav Kumar M. Mehta Ito 14(1)(1) (Erstwhile) Ito 18(2)(3) (Present) 2Nd (Huf) 297, Tardeo Rd, Vs. 1St Floor, Willie Maniosn, Floor, Earnest House, E Opp Bank Of India, Nanan Nariman Point Mumbai Chowk, Mumbai Pin:400007 Pin: 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafhm0434B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Nimisha Bothra (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Ms Nimisha Bothra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)

…uit the job therefore, the assessee remain unaware of the notice therefore, no penalty is leviable. In support of his contention the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. state of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 SC. On the other hand, the Ld. representative of the revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “3.2. The arguments of the appellant hold no water. The notice dated 11/07/2014 was sent by email to the appellant. Therefore, his co…

Ratan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1504/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Ratan Kumar Paul V/S. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Thana Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Purva, Gangarampur, Dakshin 110, Shanti Pally, Em Dinajpur, Pin 733 124 By-Pass Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aklp 6116 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K.Tiwari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata Dated 04.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Central Circle-Xxvii, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Vide His Order Dated 03.09.2014. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…made. The assessee in support of its claim has also produced the copy of medical certificates. The assessee in support of its claim has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26(SC). ITA No.1504/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Ratan KR. Paul Vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII, Kol Page 3 However, Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO. Being aggrieved by the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR before us submitted that the identical issue in the own…