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 371,084 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

Vardhman Infra Developers (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-78(3), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 511/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 201Section 203Section 272A(2)(g)Section 273Section 276BSection 279(2)

….09.2015. The assessee placed reliance on following decisions: - “1. Executive Engineer vs. CIT(1994) 48 ITO 414 (Pune Bench) 2. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of UP (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) 3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 183 ITR 26 (SC) 3.2 The Range Head-TDS was not satisfied with the said explanation and thus, he levied the penalty of Rs.1,02,48,566/- as under: - “12. As seen from the provisions of the section 272A(2)(g) of the Act penalty is imposable for delay in issue of each and every certificate separately as the section uses the expression "a certificate". For each c…

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

…notice issued by AO 11.01.2023 & 26.04.2023 With respect to above we draw your honors kind attention to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court 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 held that 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 obligatio…

Pooja Omprakash Nawani, Adipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Gandhidham

ITA 876/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.876/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Pooja Omprakash Nawani Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat-5 Nirav Appartment, Plot-358 Ito Ward – 2, Ward-2B, Gandhidham - 370205 Adipur 370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpn4546H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…ITA No. 876/Rjt/2024 Pooja Omprakash nawani IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.876/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Pooja Omprakash Nawani Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Flat-5 Nirav Appartment, Plot-358 ITO Ward – 2, Ward-2B, Gandhidham - 370205 Adipur 370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACFPN4546H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. SR. DR Date of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08 / 07…

Nikunj Sojitra, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(7), Jamnagar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 859/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.859/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunj Sojitra Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhudashiya, Jamvanthali, Ito Ward – 2(7), Jamnagar - 361130 Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gdeps4923M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…fide belief on the part of the assessee then the offender is not liable for non-compliance in the manner prescribed by the statute. - we find support from the decision given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) Reliance is also placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court dated 4th march 2009, in case of Income-tax Officer v. Sachinam Trust wherein it was held as under: “Where in view of Tax Audit Manual published by Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society, which contained legal opinion of eminent counsel that in case of a person carrying on banking bu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi, I.P. Estate vs. Logic Eastern (India) Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

…in the return of income filed and the same could not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ld. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) held that the assessee could not be held in default for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of above two additions made in the assessment order and therefore the assessee was not liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs.1,79,05,055/-. 6. Aggrieved with the s…

Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau, Kutch vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…the assessee in default as an offence, if it is proved that it was caused by willful failure. These are the three varying degrees of defaults and the statute clearly keeps up the distinction between the three modes. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [83 ITR 26), the Hon`ble Supreme Court observed that whether the 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 of all relevant circumstances and that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will b…

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…merely technical and venial breach of law and the conduct of the assessee has not been shown to be contumacious. No deliberate defiance of law is established. It has been held that by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels v/s State of Orisa 83 ITR 26 (SC). "That in order to impose penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of 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 obligation. The…

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…penalty provision cannot be invoked. 4. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law, cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26(SC) has also held “that the 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 obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so” by holding as under: “That an order im…

Visen Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing )-4(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3729/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gopalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271GSection 273BSection 40Section 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3729/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Visen Industries Ltd. DCIT-(Transfer Pricing)-4(3)(1), 501, Stanford House, Junction of Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, S.V. Road & Juhu Lane, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. PAN: AAACV1768K Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Ms. Usha Gopalan, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 : 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the asses…

Godfrey Lloyd Vaz, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5304/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranab Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 250Section 270A

…nalty should be imposed is a matter of discretion of the authority 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 Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). The discretionary Godfrey Lloyd Vaz. 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. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that this is a fit case where the AO could have exercised the discr…

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

…penalty u/s 272 A or 271C of the Act. It is well settled that in case of mere technical or venial breach, penalty should not be levied. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa - (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)". If there is “reasonable cause” for dfault, penalty should not be levied: S.273B provides that in case reasonable cause is shown, penalty u/s 272A(2) / 271C must not be levied. Assessee could not deposit TDS with the Govt. treasury within the prescribed time limit owing to financial crunch. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for default. Und…

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2678/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 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…

ITO (It), Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

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

…ting the addition made amounting to Rs.4,56,94,344/- on account of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Missa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was observed 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, or where the breach flows from the bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manne…

Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal, Buldana vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/NAG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hus, under such facts, penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Reliance is placed on following: Penalty is discretionary, not automatic and has to be exercised judicially The Supreme Court had, in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 held that (Copy enclosed at Attachment 2): "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 a consideration of all the relevant circumstances." 3. Without prejudice to th…

Mumbai Educational Trust, Bandra Reclamation vs. DCIT (Exem) - 2, Mumbai, Pedder Road

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2530/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Rs. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that there would be no s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a “bona fide/ inadvertent/ human error”. The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context – "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. 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 guilty o…

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

…ion or suppression of facts. Mere fact that there exists a provision for levy of penalty it does not mean that the levy of penalty is mandatory. The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context – "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. 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 guilty o…