BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PATNA vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for not complying with the statutory requirement of getting its accounts audited and filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was rightly levied.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, failed to get its accounts audited and file the tax audit report as required under Section 44AB for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for failure to get accounts audited and file the tax audit report when no reasonable cause is demonstrated by the assessee. Whether non-addition to income constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “DB” BENCH
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE- & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 31.07.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts on record are that, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19, declaring total income as NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.03.2021, accepting the returned loss. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has gross turnover to the tune of Rs.23.23
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