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

ACIT, Ncrb Building Jaipur vs. Mahima Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 668/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 250Section 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…

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

ITA 690/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…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).…

Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, Nellikuzhy, Kothamangalam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Ernakulam

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

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…that the assessee is indulging in the mischief and also without proving that the said security deposits are unaccounted money, the penalty could not be sustained. In respect of the levy of penalty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elaborated the circumstances under which the penalty need not be levied. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding,…

Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, Nellikuzhy P.O vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ernakulam

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

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271D

…that the assessee is indulging in the mischief and also without proving that the said security deposits are unaccounted money, the penalty could not be sustained. In respect of the levy of penalty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elaborated the circumstances under which the penalty need not be levied. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding,…

Ram Kishore Meena, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd, Morak, Kota

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…to be genuinely incurred. AO held only part of it allowable as revenue expenditure. In our view, penalty should not be levied merely because it is lawful to do so, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). Looking at entirety of facts and circumstances, in our view, a clear and bona fide debate existed vis-a-vis assessee incurring expenses on drug registration fees being capital or revenue. With this bona fide debate, it cannot be held that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed the particulars in respect of these expenses. In o…

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…levy of penalty shall not be justified simply because it is law full for the officer to levy of penalty unless it is shown that conduct of the assessee was contumacious there was a deliberate defiance of law, in the case of Hindustan Steels v/s State of Orisa 83 ITR 26 (SC). The assessee in any case entertained a bonafide belief that the nature of receipt/loan/gift from father not being a “loan”, there was no contravention of Sec.269SS/T. It was only on a difference of opinion. This way a reasonable cause did exist u/s 273B and hence also the penalty imposed may kindly be quashed. Also refer CIT v/s Speedways Rub…

Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Industries, Polamuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 416 ITR 336 (Mad.) wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court by considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) held that non-filing of Audit Report on or before the due date, is a technical breach and admittedly, when such Tax Audit Report has been filed before the assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer, the question of levy of penalty U/s. 271B of the Act, does not arise. In the 8 instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee has filed t…

The Sulthan Bathery Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Wayanad vs. The JCIT Range 2, Kozhikode

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 320/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…TA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page 6 of 12 forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal loss. — Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) applied. (Paras 16.3 & 16.4) In levying the penalty under s. 271D or s. 271E one has to see the existence of reasonable causes. The words 'reasonable cause' have not been defined under the Act, but they could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, in the context of penalty provisions, th…

The Sulthan Bathery Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Wayanad vs. The JCIT Range 2, Kozhikode

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 319/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…TA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page 6 of 12 forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal loss. — Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) applied. (Paras 16.3 & 16.4) In levying the penalty under s. 271D or s. 271E one has to see the existence of reasonable causes. The words 'reasonable cause' have not been defined under the Act, but they could receive the same interpretation which is given to the expression 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, in the context of penalty provisions, th…

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2707/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the income as per the income declared in the revised return by the assessee i.e. revenue has accepted the income declared in the revised return. 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…

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2706/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the income as per the income declared in the revised return by the assessee i.e. revenue has accepted the income declared in the revised return. 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…

Shyam Kumar Sadashivan Pillai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 897/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 275

…t the assessee did not come to know of the notices sent to his wife's id is a reasonable cause also has merits. 9. It is relevant here to quote 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)] – "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 of conduct, contumacious or…

Soil & Water Consevation Department, Latur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Range-Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 41/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 200(3)Section 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

…absence of any material to the contrary. The lapse, if any, is merely a technical or venial breach of provisions of law which does not attract levy of penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd.(2000)244 ITR 417. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…not demonstrated any such reason before the CIT(A), nor has the learned CIT(A) required it to furnish such vital evidence for establishing reasonable cause. (ii)The CIT(A) has also relied on the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (1972). At the outset, it may be stated that the above citation is concerned with provisions of Orissa Sales Tax. Further, in the said ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted the following: "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: s.9(1) read with s.25(J)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does no…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…not demonstrated any such reason before the CIT(A), nor has the learned CIT(A) required it to furnish such vital evidence for establishing reasonable cause. (ii)The CIT(A) has also relied on the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 (1972). At the outset, it may be stated that the above citation is concerned with provisions of Orissa Sales Tax. Further, in the said ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted the following: "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: s.9(1) read with s.25(J)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does no…

Usha Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekusha Goyal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), 134/135, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aecpg5220J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 09.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 26.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That There Was No Non- Compliance Of Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 06.11.2019 On The Scheduled Date 08.11.2019 As The Appellant Duly Filed Adjournment Before The Ld. Assessing Officer & Later On Filed All Requisite Details & Documents.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

…reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice is crystal clear, assessee need not to be visited with the rigours of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In this regard, we note that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 has held that assessee may not be visited with rigours of penalty if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious. In our considered opinion, the conduct of the assessee in this case is not contumacious. Accordingly, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete t…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

…1969) 73 ITR 546 (SC)] held that penalty need not be imposed when there is a minor breach of law and having regard to the facts, ends of justice require that the assessee need not be penalized; The Apex Court, in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State ofOrissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC)], held that penalty cannot be levied for a mere technical / venial breach; (c) In view of the facts arid circumstances narrated above and on the basis of legal position we request your honour to consider the case sympathetically and use discretionary power to droop the penalty proceedings.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the…

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 788 & 789/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jaipur Telecom Private Limited cuke DCIT, Vs. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AABCJ0763D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.) jktLo…

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 788 & 789/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jaipur Telecom Private Limited cuke DCIT, Vs. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AABCJ0763D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.) jktLo…

Finesse International Design Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Range-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2561/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Siddharth Bhimsingh Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132ASection 250Section 269SSection 271D

…titled as “Requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to Counteract Evasion of Tax.” 12. We have examined the judicial proposition on this issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) held that held that penalty may not be imposed when there is technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. 5 Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd. 13. Good cause’ as defined Lexicon “Reason which is found to be adequate or proper and justified by a court or a competent authority dealing with the matter.” ‘Sufficient cause’ “The expr…