https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766900 ITAT Pune allowed Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty u/s 271AAB. During search proceedings, company director declared undisclosed income. CIT(A) deleted penalty citing vague show cause notice. ITAT held that AO had categorically specified penalty charges in assessment order under section 271AAB(1A), making assessee aware of proceedings and undisclosed income amount. Computer-generated notices have limited scope for modifications. Following precedents in Sandeep Chandak and Smt. Taradevi R. Bafna cases, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order, finding it unsustainable and allowing Revenue's ground. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766900 ITAT Pune allowed Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty u/s 271AAB. During search proceedings, company director declared undisclosed income. CIT(A) deleted penalty citing vague show cause notice. ITAT held that AO had categorically specified penalty charges in assessment order under section 271AAB(1A), making assessee aware of proceedings and undisclosed income amount. Computer-generated notices have limited scope for modifications. Following precedents in Sandeep Chandak and Smt. Taradevi R. Bafna cases, ITAT set aside CIT(A)'s order, finding it unsustainable and allowing Revenue's ground. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766900