https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92560 The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92560 The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) read with s.274 were vitiated where the AO's notice failed to specify which limb of s.271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars/under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not strike out the irrelevant portion of the charge. Applying the controlling full-bench ratio, the Tribunal concluded that procedural infirmity deprived the assessee of fair notice; accordingly the penalty orders framed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) were held invalid and were quashed, with the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92560