https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446716 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable due to defective notice. The AO issued notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) without specifying which limb of the penalty provision was being invoked - concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Karnataka HC precedent in Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, the tribunal found that using standard proforma notice without striking off irrelevant clauses demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO. The penalty notice was deemed invalid as it was issued in stereotyped manner without proper consideration of specific charges, making penalty imposition legally unsustainable. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446716 ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable due to defective notice. The AO issued notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) without specifying which limb of the penalty provision was being invoked - concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Karnataka HC precedent in Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, the tribunal found that using standard proforma notice without striking off irrelevant clauses demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO. The penalty notice was deemed invalid as it was issued in stereotyped manner without proper consideration of specific charges, making penalty imposition legally unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446716