In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 10
Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 479/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Spic Building Annexe, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, 88, Mount Road, Company Circle V(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aadcp 9391B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)
penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) of the Act was vague, and hence the order pursuant to such notice was invalid. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton