TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee is the part of excise department, Government of UP. As per the provisions of s. 206C of the Act a person being seller of alcoholic liquor, forest produce, scrap, etc. has to collect tax from the receipt of amount from the buyer. The authority collecting the tax has to deposit the same to the Government exchequer within the time prescribed. It has also to prepare half-yearly return for the period ending 30th September and 31st March, in each financial year and submit the same to the IT authorities within such time as may be prescribed. The assessee collected tax and deposited the same in time. It also issued a certificate to the buyer to this effect. However, the half-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garwal Trading Co. ITA No. 5853 (Del) 91 and Apsara Cinema ITA No. 5465 (Del) 93. It was also claimed that the appellant was not assisted by the legal experts and it was a case of venial breach not motivated by any element of mens rea. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) for the proposition that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. 3. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that admittedly the default was committed by the assessee. The purpose for calling upon the half-yearly statement was to know and ascertain the details of liquor contractors who have been awarded contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions were quasi judicial proceedings and, therefore, mens rea was very important factor. But subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. I.M. Patel & Co. (1992) 105 CTR (SC) 195 : (1992) 196 ITR 297 (SC) has held that mens rea need not be proved by the Department in penalty proceedings. Hence, the ratio laid down in the case reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) was not applicable in the instant case. It was also argued that there was no reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee and hence the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of s. 273B of the Act. Reliance was placed on the cases Superintending Engineer vs. ITO (1996) 54 TTJ (Jp) 608 and Dasrat Lal C. Shah vs. ITO (1988) 33 TTJ (Ahd) 124: (1988) 26 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le its monthly returns the AO imposed penalty which was also confirmed by the CIT(A) except certain modifications in quantum of penalty. 6. There is no dispute that the default is committed by the appellant. But every default does not necessarily attract penalty. Sec. 273B has provided that penalty under s. 272A was not attracted if the assessee proves that the said failure was due to reasonable cause. We find that the imposition of penalty under s. 272A(2)(c) was considered by Delhi Bench in the case of Agarwal Trading Co. wherein it was held as under: "There is no dispute that the assessee deducted and paid the tax within the time permissible, while there is default in furnishing the prescribed return. We note that the default is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke it clear that while coming to a particular decision various Benches of the Tribunal have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel. Though an argument has been raised by the learned Departmental Representative that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel deleted the penalty merely on the ground that there was no deliberate or wilful defiance of law, but since then enough water has flown and the reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1992) 105 CTR (SC) 195 : (1992) 196 ITR 297 (SC). We find that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. was not based merely on this assumption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order has obse....