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)
Related Posts:
- The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 1) We are of the view that the respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance should immediately look into the issue, more particularly, the representation dated 12th October 2020 at Annexure : I of the paper book (page 108) and take an appropriate decision at the earliest in accordance…
- The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 2) It is the case of the CBDT that it has declined to exercise its power under Section 119 of the Act as the conditions for exercise of such power do not exist. It is the case of the Revenue that the issue of hardship was dealt with considerably at the…
- Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner of State Tax has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officers of the department by placing reliance upon the provisions relating to power of investigation under an earlier enactment to justify the actions of…
- DIT (E) vs. Gujarat Cricket Association (Gujarat High Court) It is not in dispute that the three Associations have not distributed any profits outside the organization. The profits, if any, are ploughed back into the very activities of promotion and development of the sport of cricket and, therefore, the assessees cannot be termed to be carrying out commercial activities…
- PCIT vs. Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Gujarat High Court) The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognise that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them and the examination of a controlled transaction should ordinarily be based on the transaction as it has been…
- Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Since the notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the…
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