https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68528 The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders due to the AO's failure to obtain prior approval of the Jt. CIT for penalties exceeding Rs. 20,000, directing a fresh penalty order after fulfilling the necessary procedural steps. The appellant's arguments against penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income were not accepted, with the penalty upheld by the Dy. CIT(A) for non-compliance with conditions specified under Explanation 5 to the section. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68528 The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders due to the AO's failure to obtain prior approval of the Jt. CIT for penalties exceeding Rs. 20,000, directing a fresh penalty order after fulfilling the necessary procedural steps. The appellant's arguments against penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income were not accepted, with the penalty upheld by the Dy. CIT(A) for non-compliance with conditions specified under Explanation 5 to the section. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68528