M/s Paigam Impex Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4787/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74180 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) PAIGAM IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, 402-B, ASHIRWAD COMPLEX, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR PAN-AABCP4682R (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 29.05.2013 OF CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI PERTAINI NG TO 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEARS AGITATE D AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF RS.10,000/- EACH. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER ON CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRES ENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. S R. DR. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PENALTY OF RS .10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE AO IN EACH OF THE YEARS. THE 2 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 FACTS APPRECIATED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING TH E ORDER ARE EXTRACTED FROM HIS ORDER:- 2.1. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED BY AO AND IN THE RESUL T THE AO PASSED PENALTY ORDER U.S 271(1)(B) FOR ALL THE 7 A.YS. 3. THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE FROM THE AOS ORDER: 3.1. CONSEQUENT UPON SEARCH AND SEIZURE ON SHIV VAN I GROUP DATED 6/01/2011 THIS CASE WAS CENTRALIZED ALONGWITH OTHER GROUP CASES. ON 07/03/2012 A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DIRECTING HIM TO FILE INCO ME TAX RETURN. THIS REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. ON 03/04/2012 A NOTICE U /S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING TH E CASE OF HEARING ON 11/04/2012 WHICH ALSO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. 3.2. AGAIN ON 25/04/2012 A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 271 (1)(B) ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED FOR HEARING ON 3/5/2012. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY/RETURN TO THIS NOTICE ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE FACTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS STANDARD MERCANTILE CO.(160 ITR 613) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS O F NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WAS IMPOSED. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE O FFERED A DETAILED SUBMISSION ON FACTS AND LAW. THE SAME IS EXTRACTED FROM THE I MPUGNED ORDER:- 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT:- THE ASSESSEE MOST RESPECTFULLY BEGS TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CORPORATE AND IS FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON SHIV VANI GROUP ON 06-01-2011. 2. THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE COMMON FOR ALL T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE GROUP CASES WERE NOT FULLY CENTRALIZED AT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI AT TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 1 42(1). 4. THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM NAGPU R SINCE MOST OF THE GROUP CASES WERE ASSESSEE TO TAX EARLIER AT NAGPUR . 5. THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED AT F 315, LADOSARAI, NEW DELHI AND NOT AT THE REGISTERED OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE A SSESSEE NOR ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN RECORDS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 6. THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (B) IS FOR NON COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO THE NOTICE FOR SHOW-CAUSE I SSUED BY THE AO. 7. THAT THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTED THE COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE TO FACILITATE IN CENTRALIZATION OF CASES FROM NAGPUR & OTHER PARTS TO DELHI, TO WHICH THE COUNSEL HAS FULLY CO-OPERATED. THERE ARE AROUND 120 ASSESSEE IN THE GROUP WHICH HAD BEEN ASSESSED AT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11 , NEW DELHI. 8. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOM E AFTER THE CENTRALIZATION OF GROUP CASES. 3 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 9. THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS ASSESSED TO TAX FROM MANY YEARS AND THEY HAD FULLY CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN ASSESSMENT S PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN DURING INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS WITH THE DEPARTMEN T. 10. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR WAS PAS SED U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) & NOT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. FROM THIS FACT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS & AS SUCH THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS DELIBERATELY OR WILLFUL. THIS IS WELL S UPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH G IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANG BHAWAN TRUST VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR O F INCOME-TAX (2008)115 TTJ (DELHI) 419. 11. THAT THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN ORDER IMP OSING PENALTY IS A RESULT OF QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND PENALTY SHOULD NOT OR DINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT, CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACT ED 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. A S HELD BE THE SUPREME COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), PENALTY SHOULD 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 TO BE EXERCIS ED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EV EN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE P ENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNIC AL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHEN THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIED BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRI BED BY THE STATUTE. 4.1. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONING:- 5.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR A ND THE PENALTY ORDER. NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN EXCEPT THAT THEY WE RE FROM NAGPUR AND THAT NOT ALL THE CASES OF THE GROUP HAVE BEEN CENTRALIZE D. THESE CANNOT BE GROUNDS FOR TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE TO STATUTORY NOTICES. THE NON COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES IS NOT DISPUTED. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT, TH E APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO AND TAKEN ADJOURNMENTS. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. 4.2. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. SR. DR, MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA PLACES RELIANCE UPON THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FACTUAL MATRIX, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THA T PENAL ACTION WAS WARRANTED AS 4 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 IN ALL THESE YEARS ON THE SPECIFIC DATE VERY LITTLE TIME WAS GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER EXPLANATION. MOREOVER, THE RETUR NED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED VIDE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) FOR EACH OF THE YEARS E VIDENT FROM THE COPIES FILED. IN THESE FACTS IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE SUB SEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND T HE DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE AO WHICH ARE THE PRINCIPLES LAI D DOWN BY THE DECISION BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRA THMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS ACIT (2008) 115 TTJ (DELHI) 419 REL IED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND NO-4 AND WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN VARI OUS ORDERS BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO ORDER DATED 31.0 1.2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S MANJUSHA MADAN VS DCIT IN ITA NO-4698 TO 4703/DEL/2 013. FOR READY-REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE FROM THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT MENTION ABOUT T HE NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. HENCE, ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION IS NOT PROPER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THESE CASES THE AO HAS ASKED EXPLANATION OF QUESTIONS AND ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ONLY 7 DAYS TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND IN THE SAME SITUATION THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4239/DEL/2 013 IN THE CASE OF SHIVAANSH ADVERTISING AND PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 3.1.2014 HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR PENALTY HOLDING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.11.2010. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) DATED 8.11.2010 ALONGWI TH THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR 18.11 .2010. THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAP H 2 PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, TOTAL TEN DAYS TIME WAS AL LOWED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE TIME OF LESS THAN TEN DAYS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLYING WITH THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SUFFICIENT TIME BEING ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A DEFAULT WHI CH MAY JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)((B) OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 8. FURTHERMORE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT ASSESSMENT IN TH IS CASE WERE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, IT DOES MEAN THE SUBSE QUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPL IANCE. THE DECISION 5 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS A BOVE ALSO COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING ON FACTS AND LAW, THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN EACH OF THE YEARS IS QUASHED. THE SAID ORDER WAS P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH OF FEBRUARY 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:-06 /02 /2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 6 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 A PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT PROC EEDINGS SHOWS THAT APART FROM PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS STATE OF ORISSA (19 72) 83 ITR 26(SC). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELHI G BENCH IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS AC IT (2008) 115 TTJ (DELHI) 419. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE PASSED U/S 153(A) R.W.S 143(3) A ND NOT U/S 144. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE SAID CONTENTION AS AN EVIDE NT FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ATTACHED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD W HICH SHOW THAT THE ORDERS WERE PASSED IN THE RELEVANT YEAR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO U/S 153(A) R.W.S 143 ASSESSING THE INCOME AT NIL. IT IS SEEN THAT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER THAT NOTICES WERE SENT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N THE REASONS FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON 11.04.2012 BEFORE US. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO AGITATED LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE AO. A PERUSAL OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKS HAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS ACIT (CITED SUPRA) SHOWS THAT IT WAS HELD THEREIN T HAT ASSESSMENT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE U/S 143(3) AND NOT U/S 144 MEANS THAT THERE WA S SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND THE DEFAULT COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE AO. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2014 IN ITA NO-4698 TO 4703/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE MS. MANJUSHA MADAN VS DCI T. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW LOOKING AT THE DISCUSSION AND THE P RECEDENTS THAT THE PENALTY ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER I S SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS QUASHED. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXT RACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDING AS UNDER:- 7 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT MENTION ABOUT T HE NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. HENCE, ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION IS NOT PROPER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THESE CASES THE AO HAS ASKED EXPLANATION OF QUESTIONS AND ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ONLY 7 DAYS TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND IN THE SAME SITUATION THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4239/DEL/2 013 IN THE CASE OF SHIVAANSH ADVERTISING AND PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 3.1.2014 HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR PENALTY HOLDING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.11.2010. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) DATED 8.11.2010 ALONGWI TH THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR 18.11 .2010. THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAP H 2 PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, TOTAL TEN DAYS TIME WAS AL LOWED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE TIME OF LESS THAN TEN DAYS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLYING WITH THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SUFFICIENT TIME BEING ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A DEFAULT WHI CH MAY JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)((B) OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 8. FURTHERMORE, WE ALSO NOTE THAT ASSESSMENT IN TH IS CASE WERE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, IT DOES MEAN THE SUBSE QUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPL IANCE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS A BOVE ALSO COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 FURTHERMORE, WE FIND THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN A DECISION RENDERED BY A LARGER BENCH COMPRISING OF THREE OF THEIR LORDSH IPS IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26 HELD THAT THAT AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMP OSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DI SREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCIS ED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. E VEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE P ENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNIC AL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FR OM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRI BED BY THE STATUTE. 8 I.T.A .NOS.-4787 TO 4791/DEL/2013 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PENALTY ORDERS ARE DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH OF FEBRUARY 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:-06 /02 /2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 6. APPELLANT 7. RESPONDENT 8. CIT 9. CIT(APPEALS) 10. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI