https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789264 Penalty for non-compliance with notices was held unsustainable where the assessee had already filed returns in response to the reopening notice and the assessment record noted that response. For the later notice, absence was explained by the authorised consultant's illness, which was treated as a genuine cause for non-appearance. On these facts, the basis for penal action for failure to comply was not made out, and the same factual position applied to both assessment years. The penalty under section 271(1)(b) was therefore not justified, and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 08:51:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789264 Penalty for non-compliance with notices was held unsustainable where the assessee had already filed returns in response to the reopening notice and the assessment record noted that response. For the later notice, absence was explained by the authorised consultant's illness, which was treated as a genuine cause for non-appearance. On these facts, the basis for penal action for failure to comply was not made out, and the same factual position applied to both assessment years. The penalty under section 271(1)(b) was therefore not justified, and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789264