“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

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

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

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

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

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)

Mudassir Hayat, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2551/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshmudassir Hayat, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 145, 1St Floor, Pocket Ii, Ward-1(4), Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ablph0216M

For Appellant: Shri W. A. Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol

ITA 632/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a separate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also initiated for alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20 ... under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure of Rs.31,96,245/- ii. Testing fees of Rs.50,29,391/- iii. Consultancy charges of Rs.2,18,58,050/- iv. Foreign exchange fluctuation

Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 623/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 800/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 799/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Court had held that where the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence for non-production of documents, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was justified. He held that the case of the 4 Lalji Yadav A.Y. 2017-18 assessee was squarely covered by the judgment

Rsrg Devbuild P. Ltd, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1), Indore

ITA 6/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274Section 277

demise of counsel, no reply could be filed to the AO in response to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. section 271(1)(b) for Page 2 of 4 RSRG Devbuild Private Limited ITA No.6/1nd/2025 Assessment year 2014-15 imposition of penalty. Ld. AR prayed to delete the penalty having

Murmu Pankaj Kumar, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.134/Bang/2025 Murmu Pankaj Kumar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Nandighosh Seolf Help Savings Goop Limited, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.272/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Nandighosh Self Help Savings Vs Ito, Puri Ward, Puri Coop Limited, Uttarparswa, Matha Bazar Puri Pan No. : Aaaan 8072 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Vikas Jain HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-66(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2609/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2609/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Vikas Jain Huf, Vs Cit(A)/Income Tax Officer, 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre- Ward-66(7), 1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, New Delhi-110002 Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihv6645J Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073132558(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

cause for such failure, within the meaning of section 273B. The action of the A.O. in imposing penalty of Rs 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the levy of penalty is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are dismissed ... flows from a Bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. The provisions of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue In support we hereby draw your honour's kind attention to the decision

Kewal Kanwar Bhandari, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 651/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Order, By Observing In The Manner As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: Dr. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 632/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 04.03.2024; (ii) under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, dated 24.08.2024; and (iii) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 20.09.2024. As common issues are involved ... appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA No. 631/Hyd/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) The order

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 630/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle-1, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V. The Assessing Officer Gole Market Central Circle – 1 Mahanagar, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakca3580E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2 lakhs. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

S.B. Combine, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT(KZ) AND RAJESH KUMAR

Srinivas Rachiraju, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

The appeal is dismissed under mistaken belief about the facts

ITA 361/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 361/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 4

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC

Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, Khorda vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC