https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395273 The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid due to its failure to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus lacking procedural fairness and legal validity. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty, emphasizing the requirement for clarity in penalty notices, as supported by precedents from the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. en-us Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 12:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395273 The ITAT Delhi allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid due to its failure to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus lacking procedural fairness and legal validity. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty, emphasizing the requirement for clarity in penalty notices, as supported by precedents from the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395273