https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444610 The Tribunal vacated the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as it was based on a deeming fiction rather than actual evidence of income concealment. The penalty appeal order was procedurally irregular, being decided before the quantum appeal. The Tribunal noted the appellant's role as a power of attorney holder and criticized the mechanical confirmation of the penalty by CIT(A) without proper examination. The judgment underscored the need for penalties to be based on concrete evidence and procedural fairness, allowing the assessee's appeal. en-us Wed, 14 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:36:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444610 The Tribunal vacated the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as it was based on a deeming fiction rather than actual evidence of income concealment. The penalty appeal order was procedurally irregular, being decided before the quantum appeal. The Tribunal noted the appellant's role as a power of attorney holder and criticized the mechanical confirmation of the penalty by CIT(A) without proper examination. The judgment underscored the need for penalties to be based on concrete evidence and procedural fairness, allowing the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444610