https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762612 ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be quashed solely due to defective notice, following precedent. The Tribunal confirmed share capital addition and noted CIT(A) issued eight notices with no compliance from assessee. Despite email notices being sent, assessee failed to appear before CIT(A). To ensure fairness, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order for fresh consideration, allowing assessee opportunity to present all contentions including defective notice issue. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes with matter remanded for de novo hearing. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762612 ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be quashed solely due to defective notice, following precedent. The Tribunal confirmed share capital addition and noted CIT(A) issued eight notices with no compliance from assessee. Despite email notices being sent, assessee failed to appear before CIT(A). To ensure fairness, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order for fresh consideration, allowing assessee opportunity to present all contentions including defective notice issue. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes with matter remanded for de novo hearing. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762612