https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423120 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the nature of the penalty charge in the notice. The judgment stressed the significance of clear and specific penalty notices to ensure fairness in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the need for strict construction of penal provisions. The Tribunal found no new evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and highlighting the importance of clarity in penalty notices for the benefit of the assessee. en-us Thu, 26 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2022 08:46:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423120 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the nature of the penalty charge in the notice. The judgment stressed the significance of clear and specific penalty notices to ensure fairness in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the need for strict construction of penal provisions. The Tribunal found no new evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and highlighting the importance of clarity in penalty notices for the benefit of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423120