https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754276 ITAT Mumbai quashed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to defective notice under Section 274. The AO failed to specify the nature of concealment in the penalty notice, making it invalid. Following judicial precedents including SAS Emerald Meadows case upheld by SC, the tribunal held that notices must clearly specify whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notice covered both offences without specification, the penalty was unsustainable on legal grounds and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754276 ITAT Mumbai quashed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to defective notice under Section 274. The AO failed to specify the nature of concealment in the penalty notice, making it invalid. Following judicial precedents including SAS Emerald Meadows case upheld by SC, the tribunal held that notices must clearly specify whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notice covered both offences without specification, the penalty was unsustainable on legal grounds and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754276