“penalty under section 271B”

PenaltySection 271BSection 271B222 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271B is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271B

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT

222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court

114

citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.

322 ITR 86 · 2010 · High Court

110

citing judgments

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors

299 ITR 219 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

365 ITR 560 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

If a sum is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient, the payer is not obligated to deduct tax at source, and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. The Bombay High Court also affirmed that penalty proceedings under section 271B may be quashed in certain circumstances.

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

Bharat Construction Co. v. ITO

153 CTR 414 · 1999 · High Court

citing judgments

When an assessee fails to maintain books of account, resulting in a confirmed penalty under section 271A, no additional penalty under section 271B can be levied for the failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, as there are no accounts to audit.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271B

M/S Lokmanya Shiksham Sansthan, Dewas vs. The JCIT Exemption, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 394/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 269SSection 271BSection 271D

more in a day which is restricted the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T of the Act. Hence, the penalty under Section 271B & 271E of the Act was levied on 22.09.2017 at Rs. 3,80,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before

Shri Jasubhai Najabhai Barad, Chhatroda, (Gir Somnath) vs. The ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Barad vs. ACIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. The levy of penalty is not justified. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty on a deceased

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

also issued show cause notices date 25.11.2017 & 18.05.2018 (paper Book Page No. 3-4) for imposition of penalty under Section 271B. The assessee ignoring the vagueness of show cause notice duly replied to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. A.O vide his letter dated 10.05.2018 (paper Book Page ... section 44AA of The Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 18.05.2018 (Paper Book Page No. 7-11) and also levied penalty under Section 271B of The Income Tax Act. 1961 of Rs. 53,320.00 for not getting the books of accounts audited under section 44AB of The Income

Jagdish Chandra Chhaparwal, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

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

ITA 3/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradjagdish Chandra Chhaparwal, Vs Ito, House No.D-500/01, Nehru Ward-5, Road, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara- Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppc6573N Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 147Section 271BSection 271FSection 44A

Income Tax Officer [2007] 295 ITR 314 (Raj), without appreciating the fact that in such case it was held that levy of penalty under section 271B for non- compliance with section 44AB for the assessment year 1994-95 could not be sustained as the assessee was under a bonafide belief

Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Income Tax Officer, Ward B/1 Bombay Market, No.1(2)(2), Aayakar Vs Umarwada, Surat-395003 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan No: Aobps 3537 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 21.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 09.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2) Surat, Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.02.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.69,210/- U/S 271B Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Jigneshbhai R. Savalia 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Ground(S) Either Before Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 03.11.2017 in accepting returned income. Subsequently Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B by holding that during the course of assessment, it was noted that total turnover of assessee was at Rs.1.38 crores, which was in exceeding ... specified limit as per provision of Section 44AB. The assessee failed to comply the said Section 44AB and accordingly liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act. The NFAC/ Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Chorode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The ITO, W2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 881/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan V.SFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

this consolidated order. 4. The solitary issue raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 penalty under Section

The Chorode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. The ITO, W2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 880/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan V.SFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

B Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Muralidharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi confirming the order imposing penalty issued by the Income Tax Officer, ward 1 (2) Kozhikode imposing penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year 2016-17 is arbitrary against law, facts and circumstances of the case. Page ... hence the penalty is levied correctly. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The lower authorities have levied penalty under section 271B of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the audit Page 5 of 6 report within the time

Anirudh Baheti HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 147Section 271BSection 44A

account audited as per requirement of Section 44AB of the Act but he failed to do so. Hence initiated proceeding for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. 2. Your honor, the Ld. AO has proceeded on basis that the turnover of the assessee in respect of Commodities ... perused the facts of the case, the penalty order and the submissions of the appellant. It is seen that the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271B for not getting the accounts audited. There is no dispute as to the fact that the turnover of the assessee is more than

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

short term capital loss on account of trading in securities. The Ld. A.O also allegedly issued two show cause notices for imposing penalty under Section 271B (Paper Book Page 15 & Pages 16-17). However, one of the show cause notice allegedly dated 20.12.2019 was not uploaded on portal ... Paper Book as page No. 18. Without considering the arguments raised by the assessee in his reply, the Ld. A.O eventually imposed penalty under section 271B of Rs 79639.00 vide order dated 06.01.2022 (Paper Book Page no. 21-23) alleging that the assessee’s turnover has exceeded the limit prescribed

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

assessee before me is with regard to the challenging the order of ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) in upholding the imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act. 4. Before me, the ld. A/R appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as made by him before ... 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. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter. Of course, it is apparent from the records that the assessee failed

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

pages 1-5) in which loss was assessed at Rs. 43,658/-. The AO also issued show cause notice for imposing penalty under section 271B (PB page 6) and eventually imposed penalty under section 271B of Rs. 53,609/- vide order dated 24.05.2018 (PB Pages 7-10) alleging that ... assessee’s turnover has exceeded the limit prescribed under section 44AB. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty under section 271B of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The assessee made various submissions before the ld. CIT (A) but the assessee could

Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 139/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And

Sumit Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5810/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A), In His Submissions Assessee Stated That He

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271BSection 44A

liable for tax audit under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Since it was not done penalty under section 271B of the Act was levied amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Before the ld. CIT (A), in his submissions assessee stated that

Saravana Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3376/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Saravana Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Bajanai Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Chennai. [Pan:Abmfs6610H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 17.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 271BSection 44A

Accountant before 30.09.2011, but, the assessee got his account audited only on 29.09.2014. As the assessee has failed to get his accounts audited, penalty under section 271B of the Act is liable to be levied. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act. After ... have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act, the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the audit report before the ld. CIT(A) that

Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - 29(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3817/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 3817/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2012-13) Shri Shailesh Jayant Shah Vs Ito 29(3)(3), Room No.C-10/307, 210, Shop No.5 Bandra Kurla Complex, Pratyakshakar Iron Market, Masjid Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 009 051 Pan : Aaeps1841D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

getting his books of account audited, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below levying the penalty under section 271B of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/042022 sd/- (GAGAN

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Reliance can be placed on :- Manoj S. Gugale Vs. ITO ITA No. 417/Pune/2016 held that "The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year under ... brought any material on record to support that the belief of the assessee was not bona fide. Assessing officer has levied penalty under section 271B of the Act for not getting the books audited under section 44AB of the Act. A reading of section 271B makes it clear that