https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255759 Delay in filing the first appeal was condoned because the company was in liquidation, the penalty order had not been served on the competent authority, and the record showed bona fide steps to have the matter pursued by those handling the affairs. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also held unsustainable because the assessment was cursory, the explanations were not dealt with item-wise, and the penalty charge was not clearly specified as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore quashed and relief was granted on both limitation and merits. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255759 Delay in filing the first appeal was condoned because the company was in liquidation, the penalty order had not been served on the competent authority, and the record showed bona fide steps to have the matter pursued by those handling the affairs. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also held unsustainable because the assessment was cursory, the explanations were not dealt with item-wise, and the penalty charge was not clearly specified as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore quashed and relief was granted on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255759