Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. At this stage, let refer observations and findings made by the Apex Court in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station (supra). Para 14 and 17 are relevant to decide the issue, they are as under :-

"14. The three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others (supra) while examining the scope and ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that as far as the penalty inflicted under the provisions is a civil liability is concerned, mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing civil penalties and overruled the two- Judge Bench judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another7 and approved the view expressed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Chairman, SEBI (supra) and held in paras 18 and 20 as under:

17. It may be noticed that Dilip N. Shroff(supra) on which reliance was placed has been overruled by this Court in Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others . For the aforesaid reasons, the view expressed by this Court in Employees State Insurance NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2820/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined Corporation may not be of binding precedent on the subject and of no assistance to the appellant(s)."

8. What appears from the aforesaid judgment that Apex Court while deciding the issue in the case of ESIC v/s. HMT Ltd. (supra) has taken assistance from the judgment of Dilip Shroff v/s. CIT [(2007) 6 SCC 329]. Later on in the case of Union of India v/s. Dharmendra Textile Processor [(2008) 13 SCC 369, judgment in the case of Dilip Shroff (supra) has been overruled. Thus, it is held that view expressed by Apex Court in ESIC v/s. HMT Ltd. (supra) would not be binding precedent on the subject and would not render any assistance.