9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. The appellant filed a fresh application on 23rd July, 1990. The appropriate authority issued summons under s. 131 on 22nd Aug., 1990, requiring the appellant to appear on 29th Aug., 1990. However, the appellant appeared before the appropriate authority on 25th Aug., 1990 itself stating that he was scheduled to go abroad on the next day on a business trip and since he would not be able to appear on 29th Aug., 1990, the enquiry should be postponed. However, the appropriate authority persuaded him to answer some questions and detained him for signing the statement. The appellant left the office of the appropriate authority before the statement was typed. On the same day he filed a letter stating that due to his preoccupation with the visit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyance. The petition had been admitted on 15th Oct., 1990 and by order dt 10th Jan., 1991, the High Court quashed the order of the appropriate authority dt. 19th Sept., 1990 refusing grant of no objection certificate. However, the appropriate authority passed the order dt. 25th Feb., 1991 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000 under s. 272A for refusing to sign the statement. 3. In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the assessee that firstly there was in fact no refusal to sign the statement as only time was sought to consult his brother. Secondly, it was contended that since the main proceeding itself had been quashed, the subsidiary proceeding has lost its foundation. Thirdly, it was contended that even if there was a technical default, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate authority informed him on 30th Nov., 1990 that he may appear and sign the statement. This is sufficient to indicate that the appropriate authority was aware that when the appellant appeared on 25th Aug., 1990 it was before the date fixed for hearing on 29th Aug., 1990 and was only for the purpose of seeking an adjournment. The file contains a note at the bottom of the deposition recording this fact and it is signed by the authorised representative of the appellant. Since the appellant had been persuaded to give a statement on the day when he had actually appeared only to seek an adjournment, it is clear that the appropriate authority had appreciated the reasonableness of the request of the appellant that some time must be given for hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refusal to sign the statement. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1973) 88 ITR 26 (SC). "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 partly obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard 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 exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
