Darshan Pal Singh Garewal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.) Malti Gupta v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar) (Trib.) Tejender Singh Sahai v. Dy.CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Irrelevant words were not strike down by AO-Non application of mind by AO-Notice was bad in law-Levy of penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274]

Where notice u/s. 274 was issued by AO without striking the irrelevant words, the same shall be inferred as non application of mind by the AO. The said notice failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Thus, the notice was considered bad in law and could not be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12)