2005 (6) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... about the requirement, he had submitted the same - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,40,000 levied under section 272A(2) read with section 285B of the Income-tax Act?" - there is a rule that ignorance of law is no excuse but there is no presumption that every one knows the law – Held that Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of penalty
Judge(s) : S. RADHAKRISHNAN., J. H. BHATIA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by J.H. Bhatia J.- The appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, dated January 10, 2000, in Income-tax Appeal No. 790/Bombay of 1995. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribunal and raised the following substantial question of law. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,40,000 levied under section 272A(2) read with section 285B of the Income-tax Act?" Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The explanation given by the respondent for not filing the statement shows that it was his first venture in film production and it had also flopped. And therefore, he did not continue in the business. He was not aware that under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, he was required to submit the statements within 30 days from the expiry of the relevant assessment year. As soon as he got show-cause notice, he submitted the state .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R 26 (SC), which was a matter under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: section 9(1), read with section 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 statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, 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. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X