https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781347 ITAT, Mumbai - AT deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO. While the record showed the assessee failed to establish genuineness of certain purchases and the department had credible information that the alleged supplier was a hawala operator, the notice under section 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was sought for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. For this procedural defect, the tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781347 ITAT, Mumbai - AT deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO. While the record showed the assessee failed to establish genuineness of certain purchases and the department had credible information that the alleged supplier was a hawala operator, the notice under section 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was sought for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. For this procedural defect, the tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781347