The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the...

The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify the offense committed by the assessee, following the precedent set in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted. Regarding penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income, the Tribunal noted the vague show cause notice lacking specific sub-clauses under section 270A(9). Since the AO made ad hoc disallowances without clear mention of sub-clauses, the assessee qualified for immunity u/s 270A(6)(b). Citing SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA, the Tribunal canceled the penalty u/s 270A due to the vague notice. Both decisions favored the assessee. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X