https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344212 The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the charge clearly in the penalty notice, indicating a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to state the charge accurately, following precedents such as the Dr. Sarita Mill case and the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N Shroff. As a result, the penalty was invalidated, and the assessee's appeal was successful. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2017 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344212 The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the charge clearly in the penalty notice, indicating a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the AO to state the charge accurately, following precedents such as the Dr. Sarita Mill case and the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N Shroff. As a result, the penalty was invalidated, and the assessee's appeal was successful. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344212