← 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

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act) is the sole issue raised in the ITA No. 2421/Del/2025 and the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act is the sole issue raised in the ITA No. 2420/Del/2025. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals ... that once the penalty under section 271A of the Act was levied for non-maintenance of books of accounts, the penalty under section 271B of the Act was not leviable because there were no books of accounts maintained which the assessee could get audited. The pre-condition for levy

The Kolkkalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur, Malappuram

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

ITA 650/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Kolkkalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chengannur P.O., Malappuram 676503 [Pan: Aabat8320L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 &Tps, Tirur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith, P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, P.J., 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 5. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable

Ananthavoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur, Malappuram

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

ITA 593/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ananthavoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/707, Ananthavoor P.O., Malappuram 676301 [Pan: Aadaa0368F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 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 5. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable

Kanippayyur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur

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

ITA 590/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanippayyur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanippayyur, Thrissur 680517 [Pan: Aabtk8207E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor..... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P

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 5. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable

Manish Punjabhai Odedra, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 187/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

found that the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, ITA No. 187/Rjt/2025-Manish P, Odedara which attracts the penalty under section 271B of the Act. Accordingly the AO sought clarification from the assessee. 5. The assessee during the assessment proceedings submitted that he has incurred ... applicability of the provisions of section 44 AB of the Act. Accordingly the learned AR claimed that there cannot be any penalty under section 271B of the Act, on account of not getting the accounts audited and furnishing the same as per the provisions of section

Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City Tamilnadu Police Canteen, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2069/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri. V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44Section 44A

prescribed limits under Section 44AB, thereby necessitating a mandatory audit, and the failure to furnish the audit report justified the imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act. 15. Upon careful examination, we observe that all transactions undertaken by the assessee were exclusively with its members, and the same

Fairdeal Medical and General Stores, Mumbai vs. Income Officer 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Karuna Shridhankar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

present case, the Assessing Officer did not impose penalty under section 271A of the Act and instead proceeded to impose penalty under section 271B of the Act. If a person has not maintained the accounts book or any accounts the question of its audit does not arise. In such

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

laid down in section 44AB of the Act. The appellant failed to get its accounts audited and hence it is liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act for failure to comply with provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In the submission filed, the appellant has offered

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

laid down in section 44AB of the Act. The appellant failed to get its accounts audited and hence it is liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act for failure to comply with provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In the submission filed, the appellant has offered

Jayaprakash (HUF), Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1954/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1954/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jayaprakash (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 98/1A2, 118/4B1, Mataparpudoor Ward 2, Road, Kadhapalli Po, Namakkal Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 003. [Pan:Aaihj6329M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Petition Seeking Adjournment. Moreover, On Perusal Of The Records, We Note That The Assessee Has Also 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

discussed the said issue in detail 3 I.T.A. No.1954/Chny/25 and held the view of the Assessing Officer is correct in imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for non-auditing the accounts and non- furnishing the same within the specified due date before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee

Jayaprakash (HUF), Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1936/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1936/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jayaprakash (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 98/1A2, 118/4B1, Mataparpudoor Ward 2, Road, Kadhapalli Po, Namakkal Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 003. [Pan:Aaihj6329M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Petition Seeking Adjournment. Moreover, On Perusal Of The Records, We Note That The Assessee Has Also 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the said issue in detail and held the view of the Assessing Officer is correct in imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for non-auditing the 3 I.T.A. No.1936/Chny/25 accounts and non-furnishing the same within the specified due date before

G.S.Express Pvt.Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

ITA 633/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO, imposing a penalty under section 271B on 29.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1-That the Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow erred on facts ... specified date for the year under consideration. In view of this failure, the ld. AO held that the assessee was liable to pay penalty under section 271B of the Act and he imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- in the said case after taking the approval of the Addl

Sahil Gupta, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 1739/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Gupta, [Assessee himself]For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act requiring audit of books of accounts. We are therefore, of the considered view that penalty under section 271B is not warranted and accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. We are fortified ... furnish audited report u/s. 44AB of the Act and consequently penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271B of the Act. The imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act is not mandatory, rather it is discretionary, because if the assessee proves that there was a "reasonable cause" for the said

Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf, Kannur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-3, Kannur

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 513/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

NFAC in Grounds of Appeal and Statement of Facts before Ld. CIT NFAC. G. That the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under section 271B when the precondition under section 44AA (maintenance of books) was not met, as acknowledged in the assessment order itself. H. NFAC ought to have consider ... failed to appreciate that when books are not maintained, the question of auditing under section 44AB does not arise, and hence, penalty under section 271B is not sustainable. J. That the NFAC has been erred to not consider about the facts charging of penalty under section 271A for not maintaining

Naresh Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 547/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80C

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty under section 271B of the Act is unsustainable for two reasons i.e. (i) Once the books of account are rejected under ITA No.547/Hyd/2025 5 section ... income is estimated, the very basis for audit ceases, and therefore penalty under section 271B of the Act cannot be levied and (ii) Without prejudice, the assessee could not obtain the audit report within the specified due date due to illness of the assessee, however, the tax audit report

Ankit Chauhan, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1018/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

Blue Sky Brandcomm Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3301/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 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

Moqeetur Rahman Khan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

penalty proceeding in abeyance till disposal of the quantum appeal. However, the AO has chosen to pass the penalty order. 5.2.2 The penalty under section 271B of the Act for not getting the accounts audited under section 44 AB is not directly linked with the quantum appeal. The Assessing officer

Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani, Jamnagar vs. ITO WD-1(3) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.254/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Kanani, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar, Taranjali Vs Buildng, Income Tax Officer, Nr. Plot No.E211, Gidc Phase- 2 Dared, Jamnagar-361008 Amber Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Rod, Jamanagar-361 008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk 5085 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well On Fact In Upholding Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000 Imposed By Ld.Ao U/S 271B Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

when the assessee had not maintained books of account, the question of getting the books audited under Section 44AB would not arise. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B was not leviable. Therefore, I note that if no books are maintained, the foundation of audit collapses, and hence penalty cannot be imposed

Sai Export Enterprises, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 338/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

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.” 8. The facts of the case on hand are identical as discussed above. Thus, respectfully following