https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271423 HC held the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) invalid for want of jurisdiction, as no proper notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) was issued and the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction/direction under Section 271(1B) in the assessment order. The court noted that all relevant particulars had been disclosed in the return, and that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while initiating penalty proceedings. Consequently, HC set aside the ITAT order that had restored penalty on grounds of alleged deliberate tax evasion and reinstated the CIT(A) order, deciding in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271423 HC held the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) invalid for want of jurisdiction, as no proper notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) was issued and the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction/direction under Section 271(1B) in the assessment order. The court noted that all relevant particulars had been disclosed in the return, and that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while initiating penalty proceedings. Consequently, HC set aside the ITAT order that had restored penalty on grounds of alleged deliberate tax evasion and reinstated the CIT(A) order, deciding in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271423