https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397868 The Tribunal annulled the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the notice failed to specify whether it was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars," indicating non-application of mind by the AO. Aligning with precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Dilip N. Shroff and the Bombay HC's decision in Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The delay in pronouncement was justified due to the COVID-19 lockdown, excluded from the 90-day pronouncement limit per Tribunal rules and judicial decisions. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397868 The Tribunal annulled the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the notice failed to specify whether it was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars," indicating non-application of mind by the AO. Aligning with precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Dilip N. Shroff and the Bombay HC's decision in Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The delay in pronouncement was justified due to the COVID-19 lockdown, excluded from the 90-day pronouncement limit per Tribunal rules and judicial decisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397868