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

Akshar Gems, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.3(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 195Section 195(6)Section 271Section 274

…Section 271-I of the Act, clearly shows that discretion is conferred on the Assessing Officer to impose penalty or not to impose the penalty having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels – 83 ITR 26 (SC) observed that penalty will not be imposed merely because it was lawful to do so. 13. We also note that this is the first year of operation of section 271-I of the Act, (with effect from 01.06.2015, for A.Y. 2016-17), hence there is very less awareness among the taxpayers. Further as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, the penalty s…

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kindle Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8929/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR
Section 271GSection 40ASection 80Section 80ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 8929/Del/2019: Asstt. Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Vs Kindle Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Circle-14(2), 616A, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110019 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECK1635Q Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Shri Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.01.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of l…

Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 139/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

…s a routine matter disregarding the fact that while levying penalty, statute requires the AO to exercise discretion judiciously. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Steel Co. Ltd., (83 ITR 26). 3.2. The A.O. held that the assessee himself admitted that Audit Report in Form 3CEB is very much available, but was not uploaded I.T.A No. 139/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya vs. ACIT due to unavoidable circumstances. If, it is system fault of Income Tax Portal, then the assessee could have filed screenshot of th…

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…upra and therefore, in view of section 273B of the Act penalty is not leviable. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases:- 16 M/s Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Jaipur Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 5 of the order held as under:- 5. Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer : s. 9(1), r/w s. 25(1) (a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statu…

Jhalawar Kendriya Sahakari Bnak Ltd, Jhalawar vs. Adl/ADIT (I&Ci), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 271FSection 285B

…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…

The Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Shimla vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Shimla

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

ITA 906/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

…ant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 14 fide. It has to be borne in mind that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and as has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) penalty will not 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 concerned to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 4.2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstanc…

The Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Shimla vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Shimla

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

ITA 905/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

…ant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 14 fide. It has to be borne in mind that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and as has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) penalty will not 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 concerned to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 4.2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstanc…

The Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Nahan vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Shimla

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

ITA 904/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

…ant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 14 fide. It has to be borne in mind that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and as has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) penalty will not 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 concerned to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 4.2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstanc…

The Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Nahan vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Shimla

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

ITA 903/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. AmanpreetKaur, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 271C

…ant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Nahan & Othrs 14 fide. It has to be borne in mind that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and as has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) penalty will not 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 concerned to be exercised judiciously and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 4.2. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstanc…

Acil Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6968/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sales as no sales can be done without purchases. In concluding that the assessee need not to be visited with the rigorous of penalty, we find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) wherein the proposition laid down was that if the assessee’s conduct is not found to be contumacious, the authority may not levy of penalty. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct to delete the penalty in this case. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order…

Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. The JCIT-3, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.252/Ind/2017 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia Vs. JCIT 8/5, Manoramaganj, BCC Range- 3, Aaykar Bhawan, House, Navratan Bagh Main CGO Complex, Road, Indore Indore (M.P.) PAN No. ABHPB5246R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Simran Bhullar, CIT.D.R. Respondent by : 28.09.2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 24 .11.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY…

Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2744/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…addition in assessment was a result of changing the head of income from Capital Gains to Business Income and so the non-filing of audit report is only a venial breach and does not call for imposition of penalty in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in 83 ITR 26 and thus deleted the penalty. 6. The CIT(A), in any view of the matter, ought to have considered the contentions of assessee in the proper perspective and cancelled the levy of penalty under sec.271 B of the Act and allowed the appeal. 12. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act,…

Lakshmanan Revathi, Chennai vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2883/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…addition in assessment was a result of changing the head of income from Capital Gains to Business Income and so the non-filing of audit report is only a venial breach and does not call for imposition of penalty in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in 83 ITR 26 and thus deleted the penalty. 6. The CIT(A), in any view of the matter, ought to have considered the contentions of assessee in the proper perspective and cancelled the levy of penalty under sec.271 B of the Act and allowed the appeal. 12. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act,…

Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2882/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…addition in assessment was a result of changing the head of income from Capital Gains to Business Income and so the non-filing of audit report is only a venial breach and does not call for imposition of penalty in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in 83 ITR 26 and thus deleted the penalty. 6. The CIT(A), in any view of the matter, ought to have considered the contentions of assessee in the proper perspective and cancelled the levy of penalty under sec.271 B of the Act and allowed the appeal. 12. The brief facts of the case are that in this case, the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act,…

Assanar & Sons, Kottayam vs. Jtcit, Kottayam

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

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…of these transactions so as to attract sec. 269T of the Act. 13. The Ld. AR relied on the following case law in support of his contentions: 1) Ebers Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. JCIT (2004) (88 TTJ (Mumbai) 194. 2) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) (83 ITR 26) (SC). 3) CIT vs. Madhav Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (2) TMI 564 (Guj.) 4) CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) (304 ITR 417) (Mad.) 5) CIT vs. Saini Medical Store (P&H) (2005) 277 ITR 420 )P&H). 6) CIT vs. Eetachi Agencies (2001) 248 ITR 525 (Bom.). 7) CIT vs. Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh (2008) 303 ITR 5 (Guj.). 8) Citizen Co-oper…

Shri Uttamchand Sawlachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 610/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…enalty u/s 271(1)(b) are not attracted in the case of the assessee. In this regard, we place reliance from the apex court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that (headnote) “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…

Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad

ITA 2408/AHD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl. CIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad

ITA 2406/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1358/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Ahmedabad

ITA 821/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…h. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 272 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa – 83 ITR 26 (SC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is cover in favour of the assessee in decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it is held that penalty u/s 272A is not warranted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 60. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 61…