The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s ...

Tribunal Rules Defective Notice Invalidates Penalty for Income Concealment; Emphasizes Clear Findings Needed.

May 27, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the notice issued u/s 274 to be defective and emphasized the importance of clear-cut findings on whether there was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that confusion in recording satisfaction for penalty initiation renders the penalty unsustainable. It rejected the argument that finality of additions made by the AO warrants penalty, citing the principle that incorrect claims do not equate to inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal concluded that rejection of a claim does not automatically lead to penalty imposition. Based on legal tests and higher court decisions, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, stating that the decision was neither perverse nor illegal. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s ...

Tribunal Rules Defective Notice Invalidates Penalty for Income Concealment; Emphasizes Clear Findings Needed.

May 27, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for such notices to clearly delineate the charge against the assessee, allowing...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

Penalty imposed u/s 271AAB - Defective notice - The Tribunal, has verbatim reproduced the penalty notice and we find that the notice is absolutely vague and none of the...

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer...

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee understated turnover and concealed income...

The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for non-filing of income tax return despite taxable income and interest income. Assessee...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - cash deposit - defective notice - notice is stereo typed printed notice in which either of the clauses as to whether penalty was invoked for...

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 ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271AAB could not be levied due to a defective notice. The AO failed to specify the specific limb for initiating penalty proceedings,...

Quick Updates: