Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A), Mangaluru dated 15.02.2019 passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 271B of the IT Act, and 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2014-15.
Sec. 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961—Penalty— The standard proforma of notice u/s 274 without striking of the relevant clauses would lead to inference of non-application of mind by the AO and in this case, the AO is not sure whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thus, the levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable - USMAN (P.A.) V/s ITO - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A), Mangaluru dated 15.02.2019 passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 271B of the IT Act, and 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2014-15.
Sec. 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961—Penalty— The standard proforma of notice u/s 274 without striking of the relevant clauses would lead to inference of non-application of mind by the AO and in this case, the AO is not sure whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thus, the levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable - USMAN (P.A.) V/s ITO - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)