https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778218 ITAT MUMBAI (AT) held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid because the notice issued under ss.274 and 271(1)(c) failed to specify the exact limb of the alleged offence (concealment of income vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars). The Tribunal reaffirmed that a penalty order cannot rest on grounds or facts not disclosed in the original notice and subsequent material cannot cure the defect. Relying on higher court precedents requiring explicit charge in the notice, the appeal was allowed and the penalty set aside. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2025 15:54:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778218 ITAT MUMBAI (AT) held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid because the notice issued under ss.274 and 271(1)(c) failed to specify the exact limb of the alleged offence (concealment of income vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars). The Tribunal reaffirmed that a penalty order cannot rest on grounds or facts not disclosed in the original notice and subsequent material cannot cure the defect. Relying on higher court precedents requiring explicit charge in the notice, the appeal was allowed and the penalty set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778218