Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1992-93
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 271(1)(c): In the absence of a clear-cut finding by the AO as to whether it is a case of 'concealment' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars', penalty cannot be levied

it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income have been furnished by the assessee. In the absence of a clear-cut finding reached by the AO, and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the AO is liable to be struck down (New Sorathia Engg. Co. 282 ITR 642 (Guj) and Manu Engineering Works 122 ITR 306 (Guj) followed)

One comment on “Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
  1. right decision by hon court,

    A judicial order can be passed by a judicial court only and not by any department of any government even if legislature confers such powers . therefore it shd be clear no authority other than judicial court under direct supervision of a high court only can pass orders u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax Act 1961.

    Else such extra judicial functions by AOs would get struck down,

    We follow Westminister system of laws, Dixon CJ in 34 Reg v Davison (1984) 935 CLR at 368-370 observed ..’ Truth is Judicial power is that ascertainment of existing judicial power so that parliament cannot confide the functions to any person or body but to a court constituted as determined by constitution as conceived; so in fact no department can create an order which takes effect as an executive exercise of judicial power . this position can be very clear if one examines Madras Bar Association v NTT that a 5 member SC bench simply struck down very NTT Act… to know full judgement please read the judgement that might educate meaningfully…My submission is AOs should desist using irrationally the sec 271(1)(c) in his own interest, else he runs the risk of paying damages to taxpayers sooner or later. thanks

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading