Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
