Tax Tribunal rules in favor of Assessee, cancels penalties for lack of specificity and provided details.

The Tribunal allowed both appeals (No. 5851/Del/16 and No. 5852/Del/16) concerning penalty orders under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for assessment year 2007-08. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the Assessee provided all relevant details, and the lack of a specific charge was noted. For the penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal considered the lack of specificity in the charge and the Assessee's father's illness as reasons for deleting the penalty.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against penalty order under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. Appeal No. 5851/Del/16 (AY 2007-08) - Penalty under section 271(1)(c):
The Assessee challenged the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on various grounds, including denial of natural justice, lack of specificity in the charge, and application of deeming provision sec. 50C. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings based on a notice that did not specifically mention Explanation-1 of sec. 271(1)(c). The Assessee contended that the penalty was not sustainable due to the lack of a specific charge. The Commissioner (CIT(A)) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal referred to a similar case precedent and held that the penalty was not justified, as the Assessee had provided all relevant details and the AO did not question the actual consideration received, thus deleting the penalty.

2. Appeal No. 5852/Del/16 (AY 2007-08) - Penalty under section 271(1)(b):
In this appeal, the Assessee challenged the penalty order under section 271(1)(b) on grounds of lack of specificity in the charge and unintentional non-compliance due to the Assessee's father's illness. The AO's notice did not specifically mention the non-compliance date, and the Assessee's father's illness was cited as a reason for unintentional non-compliance. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's arguments, noting the lack of specificity in the charge and the extenuating circumstances of the father's illness, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, citing lack of specificity in the charges and the extenuating circumstances of the Assessee's father's illness as reasons for deleting the penalties imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) for the assessment year 2007-08.

---