TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so as decided in Hindustan Steel Limited Versus State Of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] In the present case assessee’s conduct was not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty as there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to evade the assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese cases Assessing Officer noted that for assessment year 2003-04, assessee failed to comply with the three notices issued u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act. Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has also failed to comply with the show cause notices issued for the penalty proceedings. Hence, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case for the three non-compliances made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that some of the notices were general notices without requiring any specific documents to be complied with. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that assessee s conduct was not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the case levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the three occasions is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
