M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO,RAJSUNAKHALA,NAYAGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7 9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

TRIJAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ODISHA vs. ODISHA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

BHUBANESWAR CLUB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 14.12.2016. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding the sustainable of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. P a g e 2 | 4 ITA No.3 49/CTK/201 9

SUJIT KUMAR BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12

9. To proceed further, I would like to reproduce notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ready perusal :- “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Dated : 29.3.2014 To Sujit Kumar Behera, Plot Not. A/356, Sahied Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the P a g e 7 | 9

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the P a g e 7 | 9

PANDA INFRATECH LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Panda Panda Infratech Infratech Limited, Limited, Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Plot Plot No.620, No.620, Janpath, Janpath, Income Tax, Central Circle- Income Tax, Central Circle Saheed Saheed Nagar, Nagar, 2, Bhubaneswar. 2, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcp7216 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & C.A.Parida & C.A.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orde Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 Dated 10.8.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10013/2018 2/10013/2018-19 Against Against The The Penalty Penalty Order Order Passed Passed U/S.271Aab Of The Act U/S.271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act had observed that: P a g e 9 | 14 Assessment Year : 2015-16 “It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

9 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 used both the expression i.e. penalty is imposed by reason of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended by the ld. AR that both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

9 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 used both the expression i.e. penalty is imposed by reason of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended by the ld. AR that both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

9 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 used both the expression i.e. penalty is imposed by reason of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended by the ld. AR that both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

9 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 used both the expression i.e. penalty is imposed by reason of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended by the ld. AR that both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either