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.

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 26)

M/S Paul Brothers, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

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

ITA 1497/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

…was reasonable cause for the said failure. In this regard, it would 5 ITA Nos. 1497-1503/KOL/2016 Assessment Years: 2006-2007 to 2012-2013 be useful 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. As already noted by us, substantial compliance was made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings…

Surguja Gyanodaya Association, Surajpur (Cg) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

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

ITA 34/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Chaudhary, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 272A(2)(e)

…le limit and, therefore, the assessee had bonafide belief that when the income was below the taxable limit, there was no obligation to file the return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26, has held that for a technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd.(supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee society is not liable for penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act for delay in filing the return of inco…

Surguja Seva Unnati Sansthan, Sarguja (C.G) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees are allowed

ITA 32/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Chaudhary, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 272A(2)(e)

…ies. 8. We find that the facts narrated above are not in dispute that both the assessees filed return of income for both the year under appeals return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26, has held that for a technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd.(supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee society is not liable for penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act for delay in filing the return of inco…

We Care Welfare Society, Sarguja (C.G) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees are allowed

ITA 31/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Chaudhary, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 272A(2)(e)

…ies. 8. We find that the facts narrated above are not in dispute that both the assessees filed return of income for both the year under appeals return of income. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26, has held that for a technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd.(supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee society is not liable for penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act for delay in filing the return of inco…

Chhattisgarh Sabri Sewa Sansthan, Sarguja (C.G) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

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

ITA 30/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Chaudhury, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 272Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…o be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides". 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) held as follows:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard to its oblig…

Suresh Raghuraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.P.Radhakrishnan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: 16-01-2018

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ssing Officer. The levy of penalty being penal in nature should be used in a discreet manner judiciously and not to be invoked as an automatical measure as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26(SC). The argument of the Revenue that but for the case being selected for scrutiny, the assessee would not have come forward to offer the amount received from gratuity and superannuation fund, thereby warranting levy of penalty, cannot be accepted, as it would ITA No.365/Mds./2017 :- 7 -: lead to an inference that the penalty is eligible auto…

Sheetal Anusandhan and Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

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

ITA 147/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.R.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Mrs Sheetal Verma, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 272Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…o be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides". 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) held as follows:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard to its oblig…

Sheetal Anusandhan and Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. Joint. CIT, Range- Korba, Korba(Cg)

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

ITA 146/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.R.Rao, ARFor Respondent: Mrs Sheetal Verma, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 272Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…o be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides". 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v The State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) held as follows:- "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard to its oblig…

M/S Shiva Lokenath Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 813/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT, ld.DR

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…orders of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Praathmik Shishak Sangh Bhawan Trust reported in 115 TTJ 419 (Del) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel ITA Nos. 813 to 819/Kol/16 4 M/s. Shiva Lokenath Rice Mill (P) Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC). Relevant finding of the order dt: 31-10- 2017 in the case of supra is reproduced herein below for better understanding:- 7. The ld. AR before us submitted that all the queries raised by the AO during assessment proceedings were duly replied by the assessee as evident from the order of AO paragraph number 8 which reads as under:- "8.0 In co…

Arindam Mitra, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3631/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3631/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Arindam Mitra Asst. Cit 21(1), Plot No. 123, Ashish Bldg., Mumbai बनाम/ Gulmohar Road No. 10, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acupm 5122 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anant N. Pai ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 271(1)(c)

…ion, the assessee’s conduct is bona fide and does not warrant visit of the reverse of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In this regard, we also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orrissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) for the proposition that the assessee need not be visited with the rigour of penalty if the assessee’s conduct is not contumacious. 7. 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 03.01.2018 (Sandeep Gosain) (Shamim Yahya) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial…

Shri Anil Chandra Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

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

ITA 887/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

…referred to in the provisions of section 271(1)(b) if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In this regard, it would be useful 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. As already noted by us, substantial compliance was made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings…

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

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

ITA 880/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

…referred to in the provisions of section 271(1)(b) if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In this regard, it would be useful 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. As already noted by us, substantial compliance was made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings…