The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. ...

The penalty notice issued under the wrong section was invalid and not in accordance with the law. Penalty levied is unsustainable.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 19, 2024

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The initiation of penalty under the wrong section was deemed arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The defective notice denied the assessee the opportunity to defend effectively. The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Sec. 274 of the Act is necessary for imposing penalties. Regarding the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's explanations were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal also considered that the penalty notice was invalid, rendering the levied penalty unsustainable in law. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied was ordered to be deleted.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. ...

The penalty notice issued under the wrong section was invalid and not in accordance with the law. Penalty levied is unsustainable.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 19, 2024

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271AAB - Defects in the notice issued u/s 274 - CIT(A) reduced the penalty to 10% applying provisions of Section 271AAB(a) of the Act as against penalty...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Since it has been found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 that was issued to the Assessee was vague and the...

Levy of penalty on the Appellant Assessee under Section 86(10) of the DVAT Act without issuing notice to the Assessee - order is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside - HC

Penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) - non-submission of information as willful default - Addl. CIT initiated penalty proceedings by issuing only one notice but levied penalty for...

Penalty u/s.271(1)(b) - no compliance to notice u/s 142(1) - The AO levied the penalty for non-compliance of notice dated 13.06.2016, however, there is no reference of...

Notice u/s 271AAB to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO gets the jurisdiction to levy the penalty by issuing a notice and therefore, it is not a procedural requirement but...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) - the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is due to the reason of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - As a matter of fact the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act itself was ambiguous as it did not make it clear as to under which...

Quantum of levy of penalty - petitioner points out that 100% penalty was imposed although the show cause notice was issued u/s 73 - The High Court held that, it is clear...

Penalty u/s 272(A)(2)(c) - compliance was made after a delay of 498 days from the date prescribed in the notice U/s 133(6) to the Branch of PNB abnk - there was only one...

Validity of penalty orders u/s 271AAB - penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 - penalty where the search has been initiated - levy of penalty sustained - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - notice issued but not served - Simply penalty has been imposed by considering that the notices were issued. In our view, service of notice is...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non-compliance of notice issues - if the quantum proceedings itself are declared to be bad in law and quashed , then any non compliance on the...

Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the...

Rectification of mistake - Levy of penalty - U/s 161 of the Act any rectification, which adversely affects any person is possible only after following the principles of...

Quick Updates: