https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65495 ITAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.27(1)(b). The Tribunal found no recorded satisfaction authorizing penalty and held the default (non-attendance to notices) was not part of the quantum appeal nor necessarily willful, especially since the assessment was completed under s.143(3), treating subsequent compliance as adequate. The levy was also time-barred if not passed by the stipulated date. Absent a recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, the AO lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty and CIT(A) erred in upholding it. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65495 ITAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.27(1)(b). The Tribunal found no recorded satisfaction authorizing penalty and held the default (non-attendance to notices) was not part of the quantum appeal nor necessarily willful, especially since the assessment was completed under s.143(3), treating subsequent compliance as adequate. The levy was also time-barred if not passed by the stipulated date. Absent a recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, the AO lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty and CIT(A) erred in upholding it. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65495