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 371,088 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

Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

…d he relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A) as well as the findings of the AO in the penalty order. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 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. 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 basis of reasons given in o…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5281/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

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

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

…ed the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the penalties imposed should be confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 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. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday ITA Nos. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 Page 4 of 11 Smt. Aarti Jain Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that pena…

Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5280/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

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

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

…ed the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the penalties imposed should be confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 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. Also in case of CIT v. Khoday ITA Nos. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 Page 4 of 11 Smt. Aarti Jain Eswara (83 ITR 369) (SC), incidentally reported in same ITR Volume, it is held that pena…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4570/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 to 2010-11 Seafarer’s Welfare Fund The Addl. CIT (TDS), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1st Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACTS 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Kailash Ga…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4569/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 to 2010-11 Seafarer’s Welfare Fund The Addl. CIT (TDS), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1st Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACTS 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Kailash Ga…

Seafarer'S Welfare Fund Society, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (TDS) RG 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4568/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 To 2010-11 Seafarer’S Welfare Fund The Addl. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1St Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri N.J. JawkerFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 272A(2)(K)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No. 4568, 4569 & 4570/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 to 2010-11 Seafarer’s Welfare Fund The Addl. CIT (TDS), बनाम/ Scoeity, Range-3, Vs. Commerce House,1st Floor, Mumbai Curimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACTS 6282J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri N.J. Jawker ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Kailash Ga…

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…passed relying entirely upon the assessment order and there has been no discussion on how the bona fides of the assessee were being doubted without any finding to the effect. 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. 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 basis of reasons given in o…

S.K. Impex, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5674/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5674/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 S. K. Impex, Vs Dcit, C/O-Kapil Goel Adv., Circle-29(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofs4219B Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chandra Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chandra Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 271Section 271ASection 4

…at the tribunal has taken the realistic arid pragmatic view and accordingly deleted the penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. 14. Reliance is also placed upon the derision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC). He particularly made reference to the following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "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 conduc…

Rajendra G Prikh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 6944/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…t that assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, and therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and judgment of Honb’le Delhi Bench ITAT in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhavan Trust vs. ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) In nutshell she submitted that the penalty order passed by the AO was unfair and factually incorrect, unjustified and contrary to law and facts, and therefore, penalty levied by the AO should be deleted. 3.2. Per…

Oasis Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5501/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumarआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5501/Mum/2014 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10) Oasis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 119-121/B,Shrikant Chambers Tax, Circle 10(2) Vs. Sion Trombay Road, 4Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Near R K Studio, M K Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco5715H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 274

…said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 8. 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 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, 9 or acted in conscious disregard of…

Raman Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6619/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Srivastava, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 156Section 271(1)(c)

…the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 7.4 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 o…

M/S. Pcb Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1295/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

…the case levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is liable to be deleted. 9. In this regard, we place reliance of the Hon’ble 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 it…

Jasreen Interiors, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4812/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4812/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 M/S. Jasreen Interiors, The Ito-20(1)(3), बनाम/ 11, Magnum Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfj 3942Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Chinmay Nagawat Shri Vinay Baldota ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay NagawatFor Respondent: Shri Ajay
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…the entire income has been reported by the assessee. In the quantum proceedings, the entire contract receipts were assessed during the assessment year 2006-07 by estimating income at 10%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Vs CIT (83 ITR 26) and in the case of K.C. Builders Vs ACIT (265 ITR 562) has held that conduct of assessee must be conscious and mere omission from the return of income of any item of receipt does not amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from w…

M/S. Mayar India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1872/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 271G

…a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, for which, ordinarily, penalty should not be levied. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa – [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein their Lordships held as under:- “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 a consideration 4 ITA-1872/Del/2014 of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impo…

DDIT(It) - 2(1), Kolkata. vs. Raj Narayan Sinha, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 867/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Ddit(It)-2(1), Aayakar V/S. Raj Narayan Sinha Bhawan Poorva, 2Nd C/O A.S.Gupta & Co., Floor, Room No. 10, Old Post Office 211,110, Shantipally, Road, Kolkata-01 Kolkata-700107 [Pan No.Ayrps 5729 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 49Section 55(2)(b)

…u/s. 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 24. I further place reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa [1972] 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…

DCIT CC 1, Mumbai vs. Sanju Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

…ti, [2000] 255 ITR 258 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Triumph International Finance Ltd, [2002] 345 ITR 270 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd., [2008] 361 ITR 328 (Guj.); and 7 Shri Sanju Kothari iv) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v/s State of Orissa, [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). 8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from material on record, the Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment had treated the cash loan received of ` 17,25,000 from the four companies as not genuine and held it as income of the assessee under section 68 of the…

M/S. Koramangala Club vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA/173/2009HC Karnataka26 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

…SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS DR K SATISH SHETTY [(2009) 310 ITR 0366], which reads as under: “19. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa( 1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), where it dealt with the provisions contained in the Orissa Sales-tax Act. While considering the general principles the apex Court has held that penalty can be levied on failure of the assessee to get itself registered as a dealer under the Sales-tax Act only when it is established that he had not acted bona fide, or acted deliberatel…

M/S Koramangala Club vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA/279/2010HC Karnataka26 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271BSection 44A

…SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS DR K SATISH SHETTY [(2009) 310 ITR 0366], which reads as under: “19. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa( 1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), where it dealt with the provisions contained in the Orissa Sales-tax Act. While considering the general principles the apex Court has held that penalty can be levied on failure of the assessee to get itself registered as a dealer under the Sales-tax Act only when it is established that he had not acted bona fide, or acted deliberatel…

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

…partment is specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158. 5.1.4. In the landmark judgment 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…

Manju Devi Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I..T. - 55, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

ITA 993/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Smt. Sucheta Bandhopadhyay, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(C)Section 273BSection 285B

…y said to be a cause which prevents a man of ordinary prudence and average intelligence acting under normal circumstances. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC), wherein it has been held as under:- "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 dis…