“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)

Ambitious Plastomac Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1485/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ambitious Plastomac Company The Dcit, Cc-39, Ltd., Mumbai. 405, Royal Square, Nr. Jbk Arcade, Vs. Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060. Pan No. Aaaca 3237 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Muthukumar Murugesan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corp Cir 11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 292/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.292/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Muthukumar Murugesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 31, Anjugam Street, Meenatchi Income Tax, Amman Nagar,Alwarthirunagar, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai 600 087. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aompm8457K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By The Assessing Officer Without Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals). The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Relates To Quantum Addition, Whereas, The Form 36, Under Column No. 6 – Section & Sub-Section Under Which The Original Order Is Passed, The Assessee Has Mentioned Section 271(1)(B) Or 271B Of The Act Relates To 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

whereas, the Form 36, under Column No. 6 – section and sub-section under which the original order is passed, the assessee has mentioned section 271(1)(b) or 271B of the Act relates to 2 I.T.A. No.292/Chny/21 penalty. The assessee should have filed separate appeals for quantum addition and levy

Rajkumar Bidawatka, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT -14(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1656/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-14(3)(1), Rajkumar Bidawatka Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, C-302, Rock Avenue, Plot Mumbai-400 020 No. D, Opp-Joy Ice Cream बिधम/ Near Hindustan Naka, Vs. Kandivali(W), Mumbai- 400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaipb4224H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.06.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceeding U/S 271(1)(B) For Ay 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Lahoti, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

compliance of notice u/s 148, which on facts is 4 I.T.A. No. 1656/Mum/2022 Rajkumar Bidawatka not the case. None the less penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not meant for non-compliance of notice u/s 148. Said section reads as under:- 271(1) ------------ (a) ------------ (b) has [***] failed to comply

Mr. Shashikant M Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2232/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mr. Shashikant M Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2231/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1379/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1378/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1377/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1376/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1375/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mum, Bai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1386/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1385/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1384/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1382/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1207/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was issued to the assessee for respective assessment years. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized ... Representative of the assessee submitted that penalty under section. 271(1)(b) of the Act for similar reasons were levied for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. The penalty were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1208

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1206/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

order of dated 28.03.2022, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in relation to proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts in brief emanating from ... members were infected with Covid and, therefore, even if part compliance was made, it was not a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Once the assessee has given such a reason and during that time the entire country was going through