2014 (10) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or General of India ORDER The petitioner challenges the imposition of penalty as per Ext.P4, as also Ext.P8 appellate order, which confirms the same. The penalty was imposed with respect to the return filed, regarding tax deduction at source, which the Life Insurance Corporation as employer was obliged to do under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 139A provided that the PAN number of the deducte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that. The amendment brought in introducing section 139A was not noticed by the petitioner is the contention. 3. With reference to the second contention raised, it is trite that none can plead ignorance of law. The provision having been introduced from 1.6.2006, any return filed subsequent to that, would have to comply with the said provision and any dalliance thereon would invite proceedings und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upreme Court itself, again by a three Judge Bench in Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and Others ([2008] 306 ITR 277 [SC] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court drew a distinction, with respect to civil obligations and found that "mens rea" is not an essential element for imposing penalty, for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. 5. One has to understand the dictum .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X