DCIT v. Lakhani Arman Shoes (P.) Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Penalty order is quashed.

Held that  since penalty order passed by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) did not mention specific charge of default committed by assessee i.e. whether assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income,  penalty order is  contrary to law. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed.  (AY. 2013-14)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*