PUSHPA KUMARI SINGH ,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD 3(4) SAHARSA, GAUTAM NAHGAR ,KOSHI CHOWK,SAHARSA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in furnishing the tax audit report beyond the extended due date. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee, running a petrol pump, exceeded the turnover threshold requiring a tax audit under Section 44AB. Despite the due date for the assessment year 2020-21 being extended to March 31, 2021, the assessee furnished the audit report on February 3, 2024, after a significant delay and after a notice under Section 148 was issued.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed furnishing of the tax audit report, and if the assessee provided a reasonable cause for the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 44AB,Section 139(1),Section 271B,Section 273B,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 06.01.2026, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-
2 Pushpa Kumari Singh 26/1084448616(1) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271B of the Act for not getting his account audited within the specified due date.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual running a petrol pump of Indian Oil C
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 44AB
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Income Tax Officer, WD-3(3), Pmt Building vs Oring Industrial Networki Ng Private…ITA 181/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ITO, Lower Parel vs Shreeji Paper Corporation, Dn NagarITA 2966/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026