← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO
187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Pacific Mining Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 1984/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1983/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2012-13 Ita No.1984/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2013-14 Ita No.1985/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2014-15 Ita No.1986/Del/2024 Assessment Year- 2015-16

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR

again till 20/06/2017. However, to compliance was made by the assessee before the Special Auditor. A penalty show cause under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act fixing date of compliance was fixed on 12/06/2017. Simultaneously, a letter was written dated 03/07/2017 to the assessee to show cause

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Akshit Mahesh Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

facts in ignoring that the penalty imposed is invalid and void as it has been imposed in violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act that a penalty of Rs.10,000/- may be imposed for each default but the A.O. has imposed a single penalty

Platinum Sales, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1156/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate, and Sh. Atul Mandhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 6. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding Penalty proceedings under the Provisions of Section 271(1)(b). 7. That any other ground which would be taken up at the time of hearing with the kind permission

Awla Infra, Ferozepur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 53/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

later on, also levied penalties of Rs.40,41,788/- under section 271(1) (c) of the Act and Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved with the above mentioned assessment order and penalty orders, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed

Jitendrabhai Devajibhai Bodar, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

ITA 549/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, Ld. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Baraiya Galaji Kalaji, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2180/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 17 months in filing the appeal as against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 ... assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 months

Baraiya Galaji Kalaji, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2179/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 17 months in filing the appeal as against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 ... assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 months

Lakhmichand Vaswani, Indore vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Indore

In the result ITA No:-653/Ind/2025 and “Impugned order”

ITA 653/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Mamta Uppadhyay, Sehore vs. ITO Sehore, Sehore

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 630/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimamta Uppadhyay, Ito Sehore बनाम/ 1 Np Uppadhyay Nehru Vs. Colony Station Road 466001 Madhya Pradesh India, Sehore (Pan:Acjpu1481E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

about the of initiation of assessment proceedings since registered mail id did not belong to appellant and thus initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) is bad in law and should be annulled. Ground 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order

Sunilkumar Bhagchand Talreja, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2108/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member