https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450076 ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid due to defective notice. The AO failed to specify whether proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, instead using generic "under reporting" terminology. The tribunal rejected the department's argument that this was merely terminological, noting the legislature's introduction of section 270A for under-reporting penalties from 2017-18. The AO's failure to apply mind and frame specific charges rendered the penalty proceedings defective. Penalty deleted in favor of assessee. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:44:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450076 ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid due to defective notice. The AO failed to specify whether proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, instead using generic "under reporting" terminology. The tribunal rejected the department's argument that this was merely terminological, noting the legislature's introduction of section 270A for under-reporting penalties from 2017-18. The AO's failure to apply mind and frame specific charges rendered the penalty proceedings defective. Penalty deleted in favor of assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450076