On quantum the Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to 3%of alleged bogus purchases. The AO has levied the penalty u/s i 271 (1)(c) of the Act which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal deleted the levy of penalty on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not deleted irrelevant portion in the penalty notice. Followed (AY. 2011-12)
S. Sagar Enterprises v. DCIT [2024]205 ITD 110/109 ITR 650 (Mum) (Trib)
S.271(1)(c): Penalty -Concealment -Not striking off irrelevant portion in the notice – Penalty order is quashed. [S. 69C, 143(3)]