https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792746 Penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was found unsustainable because the assessments were completed under section 143(3) after the assessees participated in the scrutiny proceedings and their replies were considered. No best judgment assessment under section 144 was made, and the notices were treated as having served their purpose. On identical facts, penalties in related group cases had already been deleted at first appellate stage. In the absence of proof of wilful default or contumacious conduct, a mechanical penalty could not be sustained, and the penalty was directed to be deleted. en-us Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792746 Penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was found unsustainable because the assessments were completed under section 143(3) after the assessees participated in the scrutiny proceedings and their replies were considered. No best judgment assessment under section 144 was made, and the notices were treated as having served their purpose. On identical facts, penalties in related group cases had already been deleted at first appellate stage. In the absence of proof of wilful default or contumacious conduct, a mechanical penalty could not be sustained, and the penalty was directed to be deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792746