Invalid penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) deemed deficient, penalty deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was invalid due to the vague penalty notice lacking specificity on the limb of penalty. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found the notice deficient and concluded that the penalty was not leviable. As a result, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of long-term capital gains, Disallowance of exemption u/s 54F, Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), Validity of penalty notice

Assessment of long-term capital gains:
The Assessee declared total income and claimed exemption u/s 54F for constructing residential accommodation after selling a land property. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption, considering bills and vouchers as bogus, and computed long-term capital gains at Rs. 80,45,860. The Commissioner dismissed the Assessee's appeal, leading to penalty proceedings.

Disallowance of exemption u/s 54F:
The Assessee challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee contended that the penalty notice was vague and did not specify the limb of the penalty, citing various judgments to support the argument.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c):
The penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, leading to a legal challenge by the Assessee. The Tribunal referred to judgments highlighting the importance of clarity in penalty notices and the need for specifying the relevant limb for the Assessee to respond adequately.

Validity of penalty notice:
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clearly specifying the limb of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Citing legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that the vague notice lacking specificity was issued without due application of mind, rendering the penalty not leviable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner was deleted, and the appeal by the Assessee was allowed.

---