← All Phrases

“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
81
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
57
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
56
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
52
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
49
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

Lakshmi Sadho Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmalakshmi Sadho Commercial Pvt. Vs Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata Ltd. 134, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kol-25. Pan No. : Aabcl6120C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kr. Patil, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Fact Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown A Property Valued At ₹1,35,95,500, Whereas The Fair Market Value Was Determined At ₹1,47,77,500 For The Purpose Of Stamp Duty. In The Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Declared The Nature Of Business As Trading Under Code 204. Based On This Declaration, The Assessing Officer Held That The Assessee Was Required To Get Its Accounts Audited As Per Section 44Ab Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Issued Notice Under Section 274 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kr. Patil, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The penalty under section 271B of the Act has been levied solely for alleged violation of section 44AB of the Act. At the outset, we note that

Kollam District Police Department Employees Co-Operative Society, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 639/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Police Department .......... Appellant Employees Co-Operative Society Lt No Q 1179, Near S P Office, Kollam-691001 [Pan: Aacak5573H] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Assessment Year: 2013-14 Porkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant (Via) Pazhanji, Thalappilly, Thrissur- 680542 [Pan: Aaaap4486A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W-1& Tps ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Kollam District Police Deptt. Employees Co.Op. Society & Porkulam Scb O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, Jm The Instant Appeal Of Both The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10/07/2025 For Petitioner-1 & For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 25/06/2025 For Petitioner-2.The Impugned Orders Were Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (In Short, ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 271B Of The Act, Date Of Order 12/07/2023 For Ay Petritioner-1 &19/09/2022 For Petitioner-2. 2. Both The Appeals Have Common Issue & Common Fact. So, We Proceed To Dispose Off By Common Order. Ita No. 639/Coch/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P(2)(a)

auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules could be seen as a reasonable cause for delayed submission of audit reports, no penalty under section 271B was to be imposed on assessee 6. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable

Porkulam Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd, Thalappilly vs. Incometax Officer, Guruvayoor

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

ITA 605/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Police Department .......... Appellant Employees Co-Operative Society Lt No Q 1179, Near S P Office, Kollam-691001 [Pan: Aacak5573H] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Assessment Year: 2013-14 Porkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant (Via) Pazhanji, Thalappilly, Thrissur- 680542 [Pan: Aaaap4486A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W-1& Tps ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Kollam District Police Deptt. Employees Co.Op. Society & Porkulam Scb O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, Jm The Instant Appeal Of Both The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10/07/2025 For Petitioner-1 & For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 25/06/2025 For Petitioner-2.The Impugned Orders Were Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (In Short, ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 271B Of The Act, Date Of Order 12/07/2023 For Ay Petritioner-1 &19/09/2022 For Petitioner-2. 2. Both The Appeals Have Common Issue & Common Fact. So, We Proceed To Dispose Off By Common Order. Ita No. 639/Coch/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P(2)(a)

auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules could be seen as a reasonable cause for delayed submission of audit reports, no penalty under section 271B was to be imposed on assessee 6. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable