← All Phrases

“penalty proceedings initiated”

PenaltySection 271Section 271556 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty proceedings initiated is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty proceedings initiated

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court
384
citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT
99 Taxmann.com 152 · 2018 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

The Supreme Court, by dismissing the Special Leave Petition, affirmed that a penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income) under which the penalty is initiated. This failure to frame a specific charge vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation
305 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.

Judgments citing penalty proceedings initiated

Sejal Nirmam Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5318/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Date of Hearing - 21/11/2024
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271ASection 69A

through best judgement assessment under section 144 of the income Tax Act, 1961 without affording a proper hearing to the assessee. 3. The penalty proceedings initiated under section271AAC(1) are void-ab- initio As the Hon’ble ITAT, in its order dt. 19.01.2023, set aside the original Assessment order passed

Renu Singh, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2806/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Section 1Section 153C

under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; charging interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the A 9. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 604/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604 & 605/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Acit Vs. Incredible India Projects Central Circle-2(4) Private Limited Hyderabad Secunderabad [Pan : Aabci9355A] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 19/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Both Dated 30/08/2022, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)(d)Section 271ASection 274

back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for considering the preliminary legal issue raised by the assessee on validity of penalty proceedings initiated on the basis of vague notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s.270A/271AAB of the Act. Thus, we set aside the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for both

Alkeshbhai Bhogibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1511/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)

circumstances of the case of the appellant further appellant has not concealed any income which is chargeable to tax and as such the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law and require to be drop. I.T.A No. 1511/Ahd/2024

Rajeev Vasudeva, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 3(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54F

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Since, the relief is granted to the assessee on merits of the addition, the penalty proceedings initiated under section 270A of the Act would have no legs to stand. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced

Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 9735/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kamlesh Kumar Rathi Acit 6, Sadhna Enclave, Central Circle-16 Malviya Nagar, Vs Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi . E-2, Ara Centre, Pan No: Affpr5799K Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Respondent By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/11/2024

Section 271Section 271A

553/Del/2018 before us, submitted that since the addition made in the quantum proceedings has been restored to the A.O. for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings initiated in consequence to the said addition will not survive, therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, the Department's Representative relying ... confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources in respect of purchase of property, the penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the said addition will not survive. Accordingly, we set aside the order of penalty

Sahil Singla, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

received from M/s TJR properties Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act. 9. That the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld penalty proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. 3. Ground No. 2 pertains

Daga Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -18, Delhi

ITA 790/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roydaga Commodities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-18 Private Limited Ara Centre, Jhandewalan 114 New Delhi House, 27 Delhi Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi - 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5420N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

High Court was upheld. 5. Further that in the case of CCIT Vs Shyam Sunder Jindal the Hon’ble High Court quashed the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of any specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act having been mentioned ... ratio laid down by the above forum as discussed herein above in support of the case made out for quashing of the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. 6. Thus having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter particularly

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysh. Ashok Kumar Grover Vs. Acit 19, Siri Fort Road Circle 61(1) New Delhi-110049 Delhi-110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpg6935L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

High Court was upheld. 5. Further that in the case of CCIT Vs Shyam Sunder Jindal the Hon’ble High Court quashed the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of any specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act having been mentioned ... ratio laid down by the above forum as discussed herein above in support of the case made out for quashing of the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. 6. Thus having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter particularly

Hatim Glazing & Cladding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

violation of section 269T and hence no penalty is leviable u/s.271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c). The appellant prays that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271E without any justification be dropped.” Assessment Year: 2018-19 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a company engaged

Hatim Glazing & Cladding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(1). Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 906/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S. DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 251(2)Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

violation of section 269T and hence no penalty is leviable u/s.271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c). The appellant prays that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271E without any justification be dropped.” Assessment Year: 2018-19 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a company engaged

Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

ITA 2101/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Dcit Central Circle 26 M/S Sukumar Buildwell Private Limited, 914, 9Th New Delhi Floor, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034 Pan :Aaics7517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Shilpi Jain, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

High Court was upheld. 5. Further that in the case of CCIT Vs Shyam Sunder Jindal the Hon’ble High Court quashed the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of any specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act having been mentioned ... ratio laid down by the above forum as discussed herein above in support of the case made out for quashing of the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. Page4 6. Thus having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter

Shweta Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(7), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Shweta Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-12/31, 3Rd Floor, Ward 58(7), Krishna Nagar, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi – 110 051 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Bcbps0393G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 153(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 275(1)Section 282

erred both on facts and in law in upholding the penalty proceedings and consequent penalty order ignoring the fact that the penalty proceedings initiated to impose penalty is without jurisdiction as the same has not been initiated in the course of any assessment proceedings under the Act and penalty

Srinivasa Rao Bammidi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.330/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivasa Rao Bammidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 53-27-3/2, Krm Colony, Ward-2(1), Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530013, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-530013. Pan:Akwpb1983F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Sanjeevarao, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Sanjeevarao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty notice, the assessee submitted that he is not aware of the provisions of the Act and hence requested to drop the penalty proceedings initiated U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the assessee submitted that he got retired from Laya, an NGO, based in Visakhapatnam and received Provident

Netra Subhash Koregaonkar, Thane (West) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4392/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalnetra Subhash Ito-Ward 1(5), Korgaonkar, Ashar It Park, Wagle बनाम/ 27/A/14 Shyam Kutir Industrial Estate, Vs. Housing Society, Thane (W)-400604, Vrindavan Society, Maharashtra. Thane (W)-400601. Maharashtra. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bvkpk0520K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Asif Karmali. Sr. DR
Section 144

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal

ACIT, Ncrb Building Jaipur vs. Mahima Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 668/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 250Section 271A

section 268A of the Act. Thus now assessment stands completed at income returned by assessee u/s 139 (1). 2.1. The A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAB by issuing another show cause notice on 04-02-2019 to which the assessee filed its explanation. The explanation filed by assessee

Dolatrai Manganlal Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1077/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Dolatrai Manganlal Desai Ito, Ward-2 A-501, Keshav Priya Apartment Vs Vapi. Nr. Gopal Nagar Memnagar Ahmedabad 380 052. Pan : Ackpd 5590 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jaymin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Jaymin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 54F

which requires to be deleted. 06. That the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of Income nor concealed any Income and as such penalty proceedings Initiated u/s 271(1)(b) may please be dropped. 07. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor any default of advance

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

subsequent notice issued on 9.09.2013 which was issued in furtherance to the previous notice was without jurisdiction. Hence, for this reason alone, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee company and the consequent penalty levied is illegal and void ab initio. In view of the above, penalty levied

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

above, kindly note that there is no misreporting/underreporting of income was made by the assessee. In view of the above, we request that penalty proceedings initiated u/s.270A may kindly be dropped. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For GOWTHAMA & COMPANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS H.V. GOWTHAMA PARTNER 3.11 Since

Echo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1469/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Echo Entertainment Private Limited,…..……Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aadcc0535E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

failed to specify the exact charge whether concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which is clearly procedural lapse, since the penalty proceedings initiated without clarify on this issue. The imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Even on merits, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) related