https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445976 The court condoned a 220-day delay in re-filing the appeal, as there was no objection from the respondent. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for income concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing previous judgments against the revenue, the Tribunal determined no substantial question of law existed. Consequently, the appeal was closed, and parties were directed to proceed based on the digitally signed order. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:36:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445976 The court condoned a 220-day delay in re-filing the appeal, as there was no objection from the respondent. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for income concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing previous judgments against the revenue, the Tribunal determined no substantial question of law existed. Consequently, the appeal was closed, and parties were directed to proceed based on the digitally signed order. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445976