“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)

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

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

ITA 228/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

Vipin Dwivedi, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 241/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Vipin Dwivedi V. The Assessing Officer C-272, Nirala Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aiapd4894M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69

No.241/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However

Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2265/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2265/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal V/S. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kothari बिाम Piramal Chamber, Ward 5/213, Shiv Prerna Shivaji 19(1)(1), Mumbai-400025 Nagar, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnpk9283E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Suryadev Yadev & Shri Karan Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Suryadev Yadev & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner erred in upholding the wrong levy penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, as there was no intentional non-compliance. The Assessee seeks the opportunity to present proof of income sources and requests

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Anumod Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3107/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3107/ िद"ी /2023 (िन.व. 2016-17) Anumod Sharma, 1590, Madrasa Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi 110006 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Amyps-5587-L बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-16, Delhi 110001 Assessee By : Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 16/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 22.12.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 250 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

For Appellant: Shri Paritosh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 57

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Rishikesh Pandey, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rishikesh Pandey 2Nd Floor, Ekatma Parisar, G.E. Road, Bjp Complex, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Ahgpp2793N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

evidences in this regard. Further, the appellant had not brought on record any material evidence to prove his claims. 5.3 The provisions of section 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act under which penalty is levied, pertains only to "non-compliance" to the statutory notices and has no relevance ... Though the due compliance had been made without any default, the learned AO had issued the show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) through e-portal on 13.07.18 to explain in writings on or before 03.40 PM ON 17.07.18 as why an order imposing penalty

Bharat Shivaji Chavan, Sonarsiddhnagar vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the Ld. NaFAC erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271D of the Act. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, vary, or withdraw all or any of grounds

Amit Jain, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

DECIDED ON 03.08.2012 wherein it was held that We find that is not clear from it the penalty order that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was imposed for which specific date of default of non-attendance on behalf of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case ... affidavit of the assessee, we are of the view that it was not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, which is 11 Amit Jain vs. Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur accordingly cancelled and the ground of the appeal of the assessee

Sanjeev Poddar, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T-Circle-34, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1994/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR