<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (9) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347358</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(b) was held unsustainable where the assessee showed reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices and the default was treated as technical and venial under section 273B. The assessee had also made replies by dak and registered post, and the cited circumstances, including the custody of the group head and multiple search-related assessments, supported the explanation for non-appearance. The penalty notice was additionally found vague because it did not identify the specific notice or date of default, leaving the initiation of proceedings uncertain. The penalty was deleted and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 11:19:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347358</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(b) was held unsustainable where the assessee showed reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices and the default was treated as technical and venial under section 273B. The assessee had also made replies by dak and registered post, and the cited circumstances, including the custody of the group head and multiple search-related assessments, supported the explanation for non-appearance. The penalty notice was additionally found vague because it did not identify the specific notice or date of default, leaving the initiation of proceedings uncertain. The penalty was deleted and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>