https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373836 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the penalty notice did not specify the charge. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clarity in penalty notices for procedural fairness. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was deleted, aligning with the decision in a similar case by the ITAT Delhi Bench. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, stressing the importance of specifying the penalty charge in notices for compliance with legal requirements. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373836 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the penalty notice did not specify the charge. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clarity in penalty notices for procedural fairness. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was deleted, aligning with the decision in a similar case by the ITAT Delhi Bench. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, stressing the importance of specifying the penalty charge in notices for compliance with legal requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373836