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 371,127 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

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…his case has been passed on 10.01.2017. During the hearings, the Assessee has submitted a brief note containing the two judgments namely :- 1) Motilal Padampath Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of UP 118 ITR 326 (SC) 2) Hindustan Steel Limited V. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC). 2. M.A. has been filed before us arguing that the two case laws of the Supreme Court have not been considered by the Bench while adjudicating the issue of penalty levied u/s 269 SS and 269T. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal which duly considered (1) CIT V. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 285 ITR 221 (Mad), (2) CIT V. Sunil K…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…his case has been passed on 10.01.2017. During the hearings, the Assessee has submitted a brief note containing the two judgments namely :- 1) Motilal Padampath Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of UP 118 ITR 326 (SC) 2) Hindustan Steel Limited V. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC). 2. M.A. has been filed before us arguing that the two case laws of the Supreme Court have not been considered by the Bench while adjudicating the issue of penalty levied u/s 269 SS and 269T. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal which duly considered (1) CIT V. Idhayam Publications Ltd. 285 ITR 221 (Mad), (2) CIT V. Sunil K…

Bhoom Reddy Komatireddy, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 652/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin. Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…tion. Therefore, given the back ground of the case, it would be improper to take a stringent view of the matter and sustaining the levy of penalty. 12. It is 'submitted that the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 SC held that penalty cannot be levied for mere failure to carry out a legal obligation. Penalty provisions, being quasi criminal proceedings, cannot be invoked unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Hence, penalty cannot be levied on mere breach of technical or venial breach of the…

Sushil Kumar Marlecha, Pali vs. Deputy/Asstt, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1, Ghaziabad / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

…e if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. We are of the view that assessee had reasonable cause as narrated above for non-filing of the return. We find that Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 held that 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 be imposed because it is lawful to do so. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas…

Manjeet Kaur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…was very short considering that in between two days were Saturday & Sunday. Thus there is a reasonable cause for non compliance of notice dt. 16.09.2021. Reliance is placed of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa in (1972) 83 ITR 26 where at Para 5 of the order the Court held 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 con…

M/S J.V.Kulkarni & Friends Associates, Malkapur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…was brought to the notice of AO as well as the CIT(A) in the concerned proceedings, but A.Y. 2009-10 however, they did not accept the submissions of the assessee. The ld. AR drew our attention to the case laws in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and placed reliance the said decision which was followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar reported in 416 ITR 336 (Mad.). The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 6. After hearing both the parties, we note that the provisions u/s. 44AB of the Act mandates every person carrying on b…

M/S J.V.Kulkarni & Friends Associates, Malkapur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…was brought to the notice of AO as well as the CIT(A) in the concerned proceedings, but A.Y. 2009-10 however, they did not accept the submissions of the assessee. The ld. AR drew our attention to the case laws in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and placed reliance the said decision which was followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar reported in 416 ITR 336 (Mad.). The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 6. After hearing both the parties, we note that the provisions u/s. 44AB of the Act mandates every person carrying on b…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Dehradun vs. The Director, Higher Education, Nanital

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 18/DDN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Haldwani Be Set Aside That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT DR
Section 201Section 271Section 271C

…deserve to be visited with the rigours of penalty. The case laws referred by the ld. CIT (A) are germane and supported the case of the assessee. It is also noted that Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa 83 ITR 26 held that penalty may not be levied if the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious. In the present case, we find that the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) deleting the penalty and affirm the same. Our above order applies mutatis mutandis to all the assessment 7. yea…

Muthian Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Muthiah Lakshmanan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- Plot No.59, Anna Nagar, Of Income Tax, Madurai-625 020. Non-Corporate Circle, Madurai. [Pan: Aaapl 9022 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T. Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336 (Madras), where the Hon’ble Madras High Court by considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) held that non-filing of Audit Report on or before due date, is a technical breach and admittedly, when such Tax Audit Report has been filed before assessment was passed by the AO, the question of levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act, does not arise. The ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Rajendran Sreedharan in ITA No.165/Chny/2023 dated 2…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 353/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Leela Devi Jain, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 218/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Muzaffar Iqbal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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. 218/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Leela Devi Jain Income-tax Officer Plot No. 04, Bhanwar Vs. Ward-Tonk, Colony, Tonk Zila, in front of Rajasthan Pustakalaya, Tonk- Rajasthan LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGAPJ 2195 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh…

Sumit Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2514/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2514/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sumit Goel Ito 6/78, Wea, Ajmal Khan Road, Vs. Ward 51(5) Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Afppg4431F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271BSection 44A

…I.T.A. No. 2514/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2514/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sumit Goel ITO 6/78, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Vs. Ward 51(5) Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No. AFPPG4431F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Adv. Revenue by Shri Jitender Kale, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 01.05.2023 09.06.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D…

M/S Kanippayyur Service Co-Op Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 923/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kanippayyur Service Co- बनाम/ Cit(A)/Income Tax Operative Bank, Department, National Vs. Kanippayyur, Faceless Appeal Centre Kunnamkulam, Thrissur- (Nfac), Delhi. 680517. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk8207E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vipin K. K Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.08.2022 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Against The Assessee Society U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Society & Turnover Was To The Tune Of Rs.3,12,85,157/-. Therefore, According To Ao, Since The Assessee’S Turnover Was More Than Rs.1 Crores [As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act] It Was Liable To Get Its Accounts Audited By An Accountant Before The Specified Date; & Furnished By That Date, Report Of Such Audit, In The Prescribed Form Duly Signed & Verified By Accountant By Setting Forth Such Particulars As May Be Prescribed. According To The Ao, The Assessee Failed To Furnish

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. KFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 271BSection 44A

…of the Act (tax audit report). And pleaded that this omission was not deliberate on the part of the assessee to violate the provisions of the Act and relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). During hearing before us, we asked the assessee/Ld AR as to whether there was any reasonable cause for not filing of Tax Audit Report, other than the reasons stated aforesaid, and the assessee could not give any reason. We note from the averment stated (supra) that for AY. 2013-14 when it received notice u/s 148 of the Act in the year 2015 it…

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Yag Ke Balaji, Tonk vs. DCIT(E), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271BSection 44A

…1 BHARTIYA SHIKSHA PRACHAR SAMITI, TONK VS DCIT(E) CIRCLE-JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 193/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti, Tonk cuke The DCIT (E) Vs. Madhav Kunj, Madhyamik Saraswati Vidhya Circle-Jaipur Mandir Yag Ke Balaji, Tonk-304 001 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAB 7653 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls…

Ashwin Liladhar Shah, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 44/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ashwin Liladhar Shah National Faceless Appeal Centre C/O. D. C. Bothara & Co. Delhi Llp (Ca) (Formerly As D. C. Bothara & Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Vs. Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: 02.03.2023
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271F

…ssee has failed to explain the reasonable cause for non filing of the returns inspite of having earned income from various sources. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Iron Galvanising Works [1987] 165 ITR 249 (Cal). 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 3 Ashwin Liladhar Shah vs. NFAC 6. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended t…

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…w laid down by the Supreme Court, the penalty could not be levied for every venial and technical breach of procedural laws. In this connection, it may be apposite to draw attention to decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 where it was laid down that even if 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 a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by…

M/S Prashanth Fertility Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 389/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.389/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Prashanth Fertility Research Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Centre Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 76 & 77, Income Tax, Harrington Road, Chennai 600 031. Corporate Range 5, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaccp2513J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 22.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271D

…prudence acting under normal circumstances without negligence or inaction or want of bona fide. The assessee relies on the following case laws in support of his submission: Hon. Supreme Court's in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State of Orissa reported in 83 ITR 26 held that, an order imposing 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…

Sh. Padam Singhee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5462/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

…by the oath administrator. Hence, penalty levied is against the provisions of the law and shall be deleted. 5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 still hold good and applicable to the appellant’s case. Hence the penalty levied is unjustified. 6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 7. The assesee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any of the grounds at the time of or before the hearing.” 3. Heard and perused the record. 4. None has appeared for the asses…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…TA No. 6425 & 6426/Del/2015. • Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT Vs. V. V. Venkatataramiah (11 ITR 308) held that the penalty cannot be levied if there is a reasonable cause. • The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (83 ITR 26) held 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 guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard to its obligation. Pena…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4438/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…TA No. 6425 & 6426/Del/2015. • Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT Vs. V. V. Venkatataramiah (11 ITR 308) held that the penalty cannot be levied if there is a reasonable cause. • The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (83 ITR 26) held 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 guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard to its obligation. Pena…