Held that the notice did not mention the specific limb. This was a case where both the parts of the offences, i. e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.(AY. 2009-10)
Krishan Kumar Sharma v. ITO (2022)100 ITR 78 (Amritsar) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not mentioning nature of concealment in notice-Notice invalid-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S. 274]