https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445194 The Delhi HC upheld ITAT's decision to delete penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The AO failed to specify whether the case involved concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the penalty notice. The penalty order showed internal inconsistency, initially stating inaccurate particulars were furnished, then mentioning both concealment and inaccurate particulars during penalty computation. The court found the AO lacked clarity regarding which limb of Section 271(1)(c) applied, making the penalty proceedings fatally flawed. The assessee succeeded in the appeal. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2024 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445194 The Delhi HC upheld ITAT's decision to delete penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The AO failed to specify whether the case involved concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the penalty notice. The penalty order showed internal inconsistency, initially stating inaccurate particulars were furnished, then mentioning both concealment and inaccurate particulars during penalty computation. The court found the AO lacked clarity regarding which limb of Section 271(1)(c) applied, making the penalty proceedings fatally flawed. The assessee succeeded in the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445194