https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783813 Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was challenged on the ground that the s. 274 notice did not specify the exact charge. The ITAT held that the notice was a pro forma and reflected non-application of mind, as the AO failed to strike off the inapplicable limb and did not clearly indicate whether penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, nor was requisite satisfaction properly recorded. Consequently, the penalty was held unsustainable in law and was deleted; the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783813 Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was challenged on the ground that the s. 274 notice did not specify the exact charge. The ITAT held that the notice was a pro forma and reflected non-application of mind, as the AO failed to strike off the inapplicable limb and did not clearly indicate whether penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, nor was requisite satisfaction properly recorded. Consequently, the penalty was held unsustainable in law and was deleted; the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783813