https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464277 ITAT, Chennai - AT held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid and deleted it because the penalty notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The notice used a disjunctive "or," rendering it defective and denying the assessee a clear opportunity to defend. Relying on precedents and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal found the AO's notice vitiated by non-application of mind and procedural unfairness; the appeal was allowed and the penalty set aside. en-us Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 14:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464277 ITAT, Chennai - AT held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid and deleted it because the penalty notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The notice used a disjunctive "or," rendering it defective and denying the assessee a clear opportunity to defend. Relying on precedents and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal found the AO's notice vitiated by non-application of mind and procedural unfairness; the appeal was allowed and the penalty set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464277