https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753993 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two penalty matters. For penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the AO failed to strike off irrelevant portions in the notice u/s 274, not specifying whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh precedent, the defective notice was fatal to proceedings. For penalty u/s 270A, the show cause notice was vague as it failed to mention specific sub-clause under section 270A(9) for misreporting. The case qualified for immunity under section 270A(6)(b) as disallowances were made on estimated basis. Both penalties were deleted. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:17:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753993 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on two penalty matters. For penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the AO failed to strike off irrelevant portions in the notice u/s 274, not specifying whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh precedent, the defective notice was fatal to proceedings. For penalty u/s 270A, the show cause notice was vague as it failed to mention specific sub-clause under section 270A(9) for misreporting. The case qualified for immunity under section 270A(6)(b) as disallowances were made on estimated basis. Both penalties were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753993