“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 132

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, Hinjawadi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT (A), Pune-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2530/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 44Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH

Manas Kumar Das, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

imposition of penalty dated 11.12.2018 and fixed the next date of hearing on 14.12.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for causing non-appearance in response to notice dated 06.12.2018 asking the assessee to cause appearance on 07.12.2018. 12. Before ... very short period of one day was granted by the Assessing Officer to cause appearance before him, in the interest, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is liable to be deleted. On going through the facts of the instant case

Manas Kumar Das, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1277/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

reply was filed by assessee and assessment proceedings were not attended. Show cause notice 2 dated 23.10.2017 was issued for initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act but none attended. Penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 02.11.2017. On 01.12.2017, notices

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 936/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

only in spite of failure of assessee on four occasions to comply with the notices issued by him. It may be mentioned that section 271(1)(b) requires penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each such failure. Therefore, instead of Rs.40,0000/-, the AO has levied penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Hence

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 935/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 934/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 933/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 932/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(7), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Kavita Ralhan, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Gwalior

ITA 443/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068450843(1) dated 09.09.2024, ITA Nos. 443 to 446/Agr/2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b). 4 446/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068452382(1

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1851/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1851/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 306, Mangaljoyt Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Jodhpur Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jodhpur 4 Rasta S.O., Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aggpp 5322 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.08.2024, Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Imposed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For Non- Compliance With Statutory Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)(b)Section 273B

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 23.08.2024, sustaining the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for non- compliance with statutory notices issued under Section 142(1 ... completed ex-parte under Section 144 on 26.05.2023, estimating the total income at Rs.2,23,37,400/-. 3. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated for repeated non-compliance, and a penalty of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000 per default) was imposed by the Assessing

Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 13/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Tuntun Bhuneshwar Saw Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Kalyan(W) Near Bk 1154, Pawai Chowk Ulhasnagar-3 Ulhasnagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Cnops 6463 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.A.Kulkarni, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 19/01/2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 684 Days. Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Duly Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Submitting As Follows: -

For Appellant: Shri N.A.Kulkarni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H” (SMC) BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH

Taruna Vatssa, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

ITA 312/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Sh. S. C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shalendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Page 1 ITA No.312/Agr/024 Taruna Vatssa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Anil Jaywant Balwadkar L/R of Late Jaywant Kashiram Balwadkar, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 758/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Ranvir Singh, Bhind vs. ITO 2(1), Gwalior

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 284/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 147Section 270ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

NFAC Delhi’s DIN and Order No. A.Y. 2014-15 2(1), Gwalior ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061124119(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b). 6. 299/Agr/2024 Ranvir Singh Income-tax Officer, CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN and Order No. A.Y. 2014-15 2(1), Gwalior ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061123855(1 ... NFAC Delhi’s DIN and Order No. A.Y. 2015-16 2(1), Gwalior ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061124889(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b). 9. 302/Agr/2024 Ranvir Singh Income-tax Officer, CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN and Order No. A.Y. 2015-16 2(1), Gwalior ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061124624(1

Shri Shankar Ispat Private Limited, Aligarh vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

Appeal is allowed

ITA 262/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Shankar Ispat Pvt. Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac/Ito Ltd., Near Stha Sugar, Ward-4(1)(1) Mills Kasimpur Road, Aligarh-110001 Aligarh, U.P.-202001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs6930P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shalendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Shri Shankar Ispat Pvt.Ltd. 3. Learned DR vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly imposed section 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.10,000/- since the assessee failed to comply with his section 142(1) notice issued during scrutiny proceedings. And that he has further filed any cogent ... compliance in the given facts and therefore, this is not a fit case for levying of impugned penalty. 4. Accordingly, we delete Section 271(1)(b) penalty in above terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025 (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER