“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)

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1226/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, I.T.O., E-5, 1St Floor, Abhishek Park, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Attpp 7898 M Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

details with regard to such two accounts. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not responded to such notices accordingly penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was levied. The Assessing Officer further noted that the Chartered Accountant of assessee filed certain details in the form

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1546/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. A.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

observing the principles of natural justice. ii. That the Leamed CIT (A), has misdirected himself in law in levying penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the IT. Act, 1961 of Rs.10,000/- and his order is thus prima facie devoid of merits and contrary to law and needs ... respond. Thereafter notices under section 142(1) along with penalty notices were issued calling for explanation as to why the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed for failure to comply with the above notices. On non-compliance of these notices the AO levied

Shri Chetas Karmshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1545/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. A.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Omvir Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Omvir Mehta, Vs Ito, B-133, Mehta Niwas, Opp. Sec-4, Ward-3(2), Surya Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana-122001. Pan-Amdpm0018K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011

Shaktishali Transport, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1385/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shaktishali Transport Income Tax Officer, Carrier, Ward-17(3)(3), Haji Noor Mohammed, Income Tax Department, Ahmad Marg, Vs. Mumbai Masjid Bander Road, Damar Gally, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aakfs9821K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

before the Assessing Officer (AO) despite numerous notices issued. On account of non appearance of the assessee the AO also issued notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The AO noticed that the assessee has debited the total expenses

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1350/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

malice can be attributed until and unless the special circumstances exists, which are not appearing in this case. 7.1 In the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act discretion has been vested with the authority to direct the Assessee to pay by way of penalty

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

Shri Vijesh Samule, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 64/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijesh Samule Ito 3(1) 108, Vaaishali Nagar Kotra Bhopal Vs. Sultanabad Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Amips 7377 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

entire facts, it is observed that the present appeal suffers with serious deficiency, being appeal filed against notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, which is not an Order in accordance with Section 246A of the Act. Also, the Grounds of appeal raised and Statement

Milan Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (5), Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessment year 2010-11, which in turn, arose from the penalty order dated 24/05/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- Milan Shantilal Mehta ITA no.1199/Mum./2023 “1. Penalty order passed ... alternative ground on or before hearing of appeal.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Inderjit Kaur Shah, Chndigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 ( 2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 83/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.83/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250oSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

penalty order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer- 16(3)(4), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 26th September, 2014, levying the penalty of ₹60,000/- was confirmed. 02. The fact of the case shows that ... March, 2014, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹41,96,121/-. The learned Assessing Officer further initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non appearance on six different occasions. The show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was also

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1336/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Utsav Cotfab P. Ltd., Jetpur vs. The ITO Ward-1 (2) (3), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Utsav Cotfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R Survey No. 603P/3/P/1, Ward- 1(2)(3), Khirsara Road, Nr. Jodia Hanuman Rajkot Mandir, Jetpur, Rajkot – 360370 Pan : Aabcu 3825 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 23.11.2021 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short] for the Assessment Year ... submission. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in passing the appellate order in haste.” 3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was levied for non- compliance of notices issued during assessment proceedings. The non- compliance of the following notices, as reproduced

Abhishek Purohit, Sagar vs. ITO Ward (3) Sagar, Sagar

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

Shri Rajnikant Hargovinddas Sanadia, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (3)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 272/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 274

u/s.144 read with section 147 due to intransigence of the appellant. However, in response to show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1) (b), the appellant has submitted, that as he was in appeal against assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147; penalty proceedings

Shri Rajnikant Hargovinddas Sanadia, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (3)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 271/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 274

Satish Anant Bhadri, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

ITA 914/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ChaudhariFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

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

Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 16/03/2021, passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The relevant facts in brief are that the vide order dated ... 16/03/2022 3. the Assessing Officer levied penalty of INR 10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act holding that the Appellant failed to comply with notice dated 20/11/2019 during the assessment proceedings. In appeal before CIT(A), the Appellant submitted that the Appellant 4. had complied with

Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. Pan No. Adips 9728 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the A.O., hence, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be levied. Further, the division bench of this Tribunal in Ramesh Bhai Kanjibhai Patel Vs DCIT (supra) held that no penalty ... Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh Vs ITO under Section 271(1)(b) of the act could be levied when an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer is deemed to have condoned the absence of the assessee or his authorised representative on earlier occasions