← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271B”

PenaltySection 271BSection 271B222 judgments

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Officer (AO) completed the assessment on an "estimated basis" by treating the books of accounts as "not maintained." the subsequent levy of a penalty under Section 271B for failure to "audit" those very books is legally inconsistent and unsustainable.” ITA No. 3175/KOL/2025: “1. Reasonable Cause for Non-Compliance: The Appellant

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Officer (AO) completed the assessment on an "estimated basis" by treating the books of accounts as "not maintained." the subsequent levy of a penalty under Section 271B for failure to "audit" those very books is legally inconsistent and unsustainable.” ITA No. 3175/KOL/2025: “1. Reasonable Cause for Non-Compliance: The Appellant

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

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

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Officer (AO) completed the assessment on an "estimated basis" by treating the books of accounts as "not maintained." the subsequent levy of a penalty under Section 271B for failure to "audit" those very books is legally inconsistent and unsustainable.” ITA No. 3175/KOL/2025: “1. Reasonable Cause for Non-Compliance: The Appellant

MANUBHAI SHAMRAV KHARAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 44A

prior submissions. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for audit under Section 44AB. The ld. A.R. also submitted about levy of the penalty under section 271B that section 44AB of the Act for the AY 2022-23, is not applicable to the assessee, in view of the following proviso

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

nbusiness entity and was not liable to get the accounts audited, the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 271B is also set\naside as the issue of the claim of exemption is to be decided by the Ld.\nAO. Hence, the appeal ... appeals concerned the addition of ₹50,14,820 as unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period, penalty under section 271B, and classification of income as business income.", "held": "The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment

JERMELS ACCADEMY ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP, , SILIGURI

ITA 2749/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

nbusiness entity and was not liable to get the accounts audited, the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 271B is also set\naside as the issue of the claim of exemption is to be decided by the Ld.\nAO. Hence, the appeal

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2748/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

nbusiness entity and was not liable to get the accounts audited, the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 271B is also set\naside as the issue of the claim of exemption is to be decided by the Ld.\nAO. Hence, the appeal

ZENITH OUTDOORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7412/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 147Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)" for brevity) has erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Punjab and\nOthers v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union\nLtd [(2007) 11 SCC 363] is relevant in this context.\n15.\nThe penalty under section 271B is imposed for\nfailure to attach an audit report. The absence of an audit report\nalong with the return will become evident during ... Court holds\nthat if a case falls under the latter part of section 275(1)(c) of the\nAct, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271B of\nthe Act must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time\nof the assessment order.\n17.\nSince the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Punjab and\nOthers v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union\nLtd [(2007) 11 SCC 363] is relevant in this context.\n15.\nThe penalty under section 271B is imposed for\nfailure to attach an audit report. The absence of an audit report\nalong with the return will become evident during ... Court holds\nthat if a case falls under the latter part of section 275(1)(c) of the\nAct, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271B of\nthe Act must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time\nof the assessment order.\n17.\nSince the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Punjab and\nOthers v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union\nLtd [(2007) 11 SCC 363] is relevant in this context.\n15.\nThe penalty under section 271B is imposed for\nfailure to attach an audit report. The absence of an audit report\nalong with the return will become evident during ... Court holds\nthat if a case falls under the latter part of section 275(1)(c) of the\nAct, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271B of\nthe Act must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time\nof the assessment order.\n17. Since the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Punjab and\nOthers v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union\nLtd [(2007) 11 SCC 363] is relevant in this context.\n15.\nThe penalty under section 271B is imposed for\nfailure to attach an audit report. The absence of an audit report\nalong with the return will become evident during ... Court holds\nthat if a case falls under the latter part of section 275(1)(c) of the\nAct, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271B of\nthe Act must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time\nof the assessment order.\n17.\nSince the assessment order

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

audit report as required under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act However, it is essential to make a note that, the penalty under section 271B is payable by the assessee only on the direction of the Assessing Officer. Further, it is noteworthy to mention here that section 273B ... Income Tax Act states that penalty under section 271B shall not be levied if the assessee / person provides the reasonable cause for failure of getting the accounts audited or failure in the furnishing of the tax audit report. Assessee who is required to get their accounts audited is also required

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

Punjab and\nOthers v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd\n[(2007) 11 SCC 363] is relevant in this context.\n15. The penalty under section 271B is imposed for failure\nto attach an audit report. The absence of an audit report along with\nthe return will become evident during ... Court holds that\nif a case falls under the latter part of section 275(1)(c) of the Act,\nproceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act\nmust be initiated and completed within a reasonable time of the\nassessment order.\n17. Since the assessment order

MEENAKSHISUNDARAM BALAMURUGAN,DINDGUL vs. CIT(2) 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3547/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3545, 3546 & 3547/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13-3-2, Chinnapillai Street, Nilakkottai, Ward 1, Nilakottai H.O., Dindigul 624 208. Dindigul. [Pan:Afrpb7358C]

For Appellant: Shri D. Selvamuthukkumaran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270A(2)(b)Section 271B

assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 towards quantum additions and for AY 2018-19, the assessee also preferred appeal against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.3545 to 3547/Chny/25 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals

MEENAKSHISUNDARAM BALAMURUGAN,DINDIGUL vs. CIT(A) 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3546/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3545, 3546 & 3547/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13-3-2, Chinnapillai Street, Nilakkottai, Ward 1, Nilakottai H.O., Dindigul 624 208. Dindigul. [Pan:Afrpb7358C]

For Appellant: Shri D. Selvamuthukkumaran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270A(2)(b)Section 271B

assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 towards quantum additions and for AY 2018-19, the assessee also preferred appeal against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.3545 to 3547/Chny/25 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals

MEENAKSHISUNDARAM BALAMURUGAN,DINDIGUL vs. CIT(A) 2, MUDURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3545/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3545, 3546 & 3547/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13-3-2, Chinnapillai Street, Nilakkottai, Ward 1, Nilakottai H.O., Dindigul 624 208. Dindigul. [Pan:Afrpb7358C]

For Appellant: Shri D. Selvamuthukkumaran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270A(2)(b)Section 271B

assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 towards quantum additions and for AY 2018-19, the assessee also preferred appeal against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.3545 to 3547/Chny/25 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals

JUGINDER SINGH WADHWA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-67(1), DELHI

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

ITA 3070/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Juginder Singh Wadhwa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of A-1/8, Krishan Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 67(1), Delhi: 1100 51 New Delhi Pan No. Ablpw9409R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

papers books. Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. C.I.T., 1996 ITR 691 has held that penalty under Section 271B of the Act cannot be levied for failure to maintain books of account. 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee had submitted letter dated ... After that there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB and, therefore, in our opinion, the imposition of penalty under section 271B is erroneous.” 9. In view of above material facts and well settled principles of law, it is held that Ld. CIT(A) vide

M/S NIRVANA NEST BUILDCON PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5305/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/S Nirvana Nest Buildcon Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, Central Circle-14, Room No.354, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax D-35, Indira Enclave, Neb Sarai, Vs New Delhi-110068 Building, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aaccn3597Q Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 271B

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The only issue contested by the assessee through grounds of appeal no.1 to 4 are regarding imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- on account of non-filing of the audit report. The ld. AO had made

SREEDEVI VORAM,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA.No.1474/Hyd

ITA 1474/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1473 & 1474/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Sreedevi Voram, The Income Tax Officer, Hanamkonda–506 202. Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal, Telangana. Telangana. Pan Acopv2435L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi P. Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)

considered view, if the explanation of the assessee is bona fide and reasonable, then the A.O. ought to have not levied the penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, although the assessee claims to have furnished the audit report ... made available to the A.O., at the time of assessment then there is no question of 14 ITA.Nos.1473 and 1474/Hyd./2025 levying penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. is directed to verify the facts and decide the issue accordingly.” 11. Accordingly, in the facts

Showing 1–20 of 222 · Page 1 of 12

...