https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778904 ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c), holding that the penalty cannot be sustained where the AO failed to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had disclosed the loan, furnished confirmations and explained the outstanding debit balance; invocation of the deeming provision under section 2(22)(e) alone did not amount to concealment or inaccurate particulars. Because the show-cause and penalty orders lacked a specific charge, the appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:42:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778904 ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c), holding that the penalty cannot be sustained where the AO failed to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had disclosed the loan, furnished confirmations and explained the outstanding debit balance; invocation of the deeming provision under section 2(22)(e) alone did not amount to concealment or inaccurate particulars. Because the show-cause and penalty orders lacked a specific charge, the appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778904