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 371,239 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. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4437/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2010-11

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 4436/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2009-10

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 4435/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

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 4434/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2007-08

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 4433/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2006-07

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…

Smt. Sushila Devi, Sh 8A, Village Daulatpura, Post Katrathal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sushila Devi SH 8A, Village Daulapura Post Katrathal, Sikar cuke Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPD 6837 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of H

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…is only a technical venial breach and not due to any contumacious conduct. Hence, for such meagre delay of 1 day, no penalty should be imposed. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa in (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) where it was 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 disreg…

Nano Agro Science Co Op Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 311/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.op. The Income-tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika GIDC, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAABN0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shr…

Nano Agro Science Co Op Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 160/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.op. The Income-tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika GIDC, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAABN0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shr…

Nano Agro Science Co. Op. Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.Op. The Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika Gidc, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabn0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 13/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 21/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2021 (For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17) & 20.10.2022 (2015-16) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘Nfac) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 04.03.2020 (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Rjt/2021 & 311/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2015-16) Nano Agro Science Co.op. The Income-tax Officer बनाम/ Society Ltd. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot Vs. Plot No.1384, Lodhika GIDC, Metoda Dist. Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAABN0532G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shr…

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. No penalty should be imposed if the assessee was acting in honest and genuine belief in a particular manner as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v/s State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), it was held that; “Penalty is not imposable 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 proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or guilty of conduct, cont…

M/S Vijendra Singh & Associates, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/RPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Vijendra Singh & Associates, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur C/O-Bedford Earthmovers Inc. Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaav 6865 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…be even otherwise strictly construed. It is perhaps for the reason of the same not finding approval of the ld. CIT(A) that she chose not to advert thereto in the impugned order. As explained by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), a penalty, even where the provision stands attracted, may lawfully be not levied where the default is not found to be a result of a conscious disregard by the tax payer of his legal obligations or a conduct contumacious, which is clearly not the case in the instant case. 7 5. In view of the foregoing, we are of the clear and unambiguous view…

Suryavathi Gandiboina, Peddapalli vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasima Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Suryavathi Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Gandiboina, Ramagundam Circle 1 Pan:Astpg2015J Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

….T. Act, 1961, he submitted that since there is a reasonable cause the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B and confirmed by the CIT (A) is not justified. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (S.C) ii) Star Agencies vs. Income Tax Officer (2006) (5 SOT 336) Cochin-Tribunal. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A). He submitted that the assessee is duty bound to obtain the Audit Report before the specified date. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee has obtained its audit report…

Santosh Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, WD.1, Alwar

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

ITA 5/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 5/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Smt. Santosh Yadav Ward-2, Jilani Mata Ke Pass, Behror, Distt. Alwar cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-1 (1), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABSPY 9983 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikas Yadav jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR alquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ D

For Appellant: Shri Vikas YadavFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR a
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and as such the notice is not sustainable and not curable. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has not considered the land mark decision by Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) that penalty can be levied if assessee had acted deliberately i.e. mens rea, guilty mind is essential before penalty and in our case assessee duly explained about source of cash deposit into bank before AO, Alwar with supporting documents which shows appellant has never acted deliberately or guilty mind.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, th…

P. Kalaiselvi, Polur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…nt had reasonable causes for the delay of about 4.75 months in filing the audit report and return for 2017-18 A/Y. 2.4 There was no willful default or contumacious conduct by the appellant in total disregard of law - Hindustan Steel ltd. vs State of Orissa - 83 ITR 26 (SC). 2.5 The AO failed to consider any of the factual reasons stated in paras (ii) to (vi) of Appellant's reply reproduced in page 2 of his order, in para 4 & 4.1 of the of the penalty order which have merely reproduced sec.44AB & 271 B, respectively. 2.6 The AO ought to have appreciated that the delay in completion of audit for the earlier year…

Sri. Padmanabha Mangalore Chowta, Mangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range-1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 273BSection 275

…consequently, the impugned penalty order passed for the venial and assumed technical breach deserves to be cancelled having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED V. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 83 ITR 26 [SC]. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant bonafidely believed that such acceptance of cash was not in violation of law, which bonafide beliefs is also accepted by the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V. LOKPAT FILM EXCHANGE [CINEMA] reported in 304 ITR 172…

Vinod Aerukala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. ACIT,CC-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 PAN : AOIPP2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs ACIT,CC-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7th Floor Hussain shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 PAN : AOOPA5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S…

Moola Padmaja, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. ACIT,CC-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 PAN : AOIPP2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs ACIT,CC-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7th Floor Hussain shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 PAN : AOOPA5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S…

Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Andipara, Gondal vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 221/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

…ing any instruction and as such the same ITA Nos.220 & 221/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11 (for both) Page 3 of 4 were remained unattended. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee stated to be is a house wife and engaged in the agriculture field but she is also Director in the company named M/s. Everest Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Merely being an…

Kiranben Kishorbhai Andipara, Gondal vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 220/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

…ing any instruction and as such the same ITA Nos.220 & 221/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11 (for both) Page 3 of 4 were remained unattended. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee stated to be is a house wife and engaged in the agriculture field but she is also Director in the company named M/s. Everest Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Merely being an…

Shri Dayalji Jamnadas Thacker, Bhuj-Kutch vs. The ITO-Ward-2, Bhuj-Kutch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…d as per the Income Tax Act can either be A.Y. 2015-16 4 mandatory or leviable at the discretion of a tax authority. So in penalty proceedings the conduct of the assessee is very important. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 held that penalty should not be imposed unless the assessee acted deliberately. An order imposing the 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, contumacio…