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)

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

…he facts and circumstances of the particular case judicially. The fact that the minimum is prescribed does not mean that penalty must necessarily be imposed in every case falling within sub-s (1). Shah, acting CJ said in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty. The discretion of the A.O. to levy or not to levy a penalty is still preserved by this section, it must be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Recently the ITAT Kolkata B…

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

…y to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan P a g e | 15 A.Y. 2016-17 Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). The discretionary power under the penalty provisions is not arbitrary and has to be guided by well-established principles depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the given case, the assessee has made substantive compliance and that too within 60 days.In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the…

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

…ely fall under Section 273B, as genuine difficulties were faced by the legal heir due to the assessee’s death, fulfilling the condition of ‘reasonable cause’. 5. SUPPORTING CASE LAWS 5.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1973) 83 ITR 26 (SC) has observed that 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 of its obli…

M/S. Gyanchand Poddar HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ity. Thus, following the case of Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. reported in 290 ITR 172 (Kar), it deserves to be held that there was no conscious or deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee. Following the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC), it deserves to be held that penalty will not ordinarily be imposed until and unless the assessee either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. We may also draw strength from the case of Smifs Capital Markets Ltd. reported in 149 Taxmann.com 37…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2524/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…y failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec 2…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2523/MUM/2025[2016-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-15

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…y failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec 2…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2522/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…y failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec 2…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2521/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…y failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]" 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec 2…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2520/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec…

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2519/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…y failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 5.3 It is a settled principle that penalty cannot be imposed merely for technical or venial breaches. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26, SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conduct is contumacious or deliberate in defiance of law. 5.4 In view of the above background of provisions of law, if an assessee demonstrates existence of a reasonable cause for not getting the books of account audited before due date, then under the provision of sec 2…

Manishkumar Ramlakhan Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Ooficer, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

…was sufficient and reasonable cause, for which the assessee should be protected under section 273B of the Act. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), to argue that penalty should not be levied for a technical or venial breach of law unless the conduct was contumacious or dishonest. The assessee also placed reliance on ITAT decisions, including Sardarmal Kothari v. ACIT, which held that when the assessment is completed under section 143(3) and not section 144, the defaults committed earlier can…