← 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

Ramankumar Ganeshlal Agrawal, Khamgaon vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

case is for an amount of ` 1,88,66,823. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty under section 271B of the Act as the assessee failed to get his books of account audited which was mandatory under section 44AB ... material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Bench noted that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271B of the Act for not getting the books of accounts audited . The learned D.R. did not controvert the facts and finding of the lower

Mohideen Saib Ibrahim, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act for not electronically uploading the audit report before the due date for filing return of income. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Priya Blue Recycling LLP, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 641/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri
Section 132Section 271ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92CSection 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jyoti Nitin Chaporkar, Amravati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 69Section 69C

filed appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). 4. Meanwhile, by issuing order dated 26/08/2022, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B of the Act the, wherein the observations made by the Assessing Officer are reproduced below:– “2. As per the case records, turnover

Sri. Chinnayellappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

273B, absence of reasonable cause, existence of which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. 11. Levy of penalty under section 271B is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred

Shrishailamallikarjun Traders, Nargund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Anil Kumar H., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 271FSection 274Section 44A

established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. Shrishaila Mallikarjun Traders, Nargund Page 13 of 15 8. Levy of penalty under section 271B is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1996/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

accounts are not audited and also assessee has failed to furnish the audit report, hence, AO has passed penalty order imposing the penalty under section 271B of the Act on 21.09.2022 ITA Nos.1993 to 1996/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 8 respectively for both the assessment year against which assessee filed appeal ... assessee since the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has also confirmed this in his order consequently penalty under section 271B of the Act cannot be levied and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1995/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

accounts are not audited and also assessee has failed to furnish the audit report, hence, AO has passed penalty order imposing the penalty under section 271B of the Act on 21.09.2022 ITA Nos.1993 to 1996/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 8 respectively for both the assessment year against which assessee filed appeal ... assessee since the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has also confirmed this in his order consequently penalty under section 271B of the Act cannot be levied and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench

Muddayya Amarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1994/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

accounts are not audited and also assessee has failed to furnish the audit report, hence, AO has passed penalty order imposing the penalty under section 271B of the Act on 21.09.2022 ITA Nos.1993 to 1996/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 8 respectively for both the assessment year against which assessee filed appeal ... assessee since the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has also confirmed this in his order consequently penalty under section 271B of the Act cannot be levied and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench

Muddayya Aarayya Hiremath, Yadgir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1993/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

accounts are not audited and also assessee has failed to furnish the audit report, hence, AO has passed penalty order imposing the penalty under section 271B of the Act on 21.09.2022 ITA Nos.1993 to 1996/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 8 respectively for both the assessment year against which assessee filed appeal ... assessee since the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has also confirmed this in his order consequently penalty under section 271B of the Act cannot be levied and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench

Aegis Value Homes Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshaegis Value Homes Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Ef-10, 2Nd Floor, Inderpuri, Delhi-1, Delhi-110012 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakca6311M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cir Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIR DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44Section 80Section 80J

whether the Learned PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by directing the Learned AO to levy penalty under section 271B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Aegis Value Homes Ltd 3. None appeared on behalf ... provisions of Section 44 AB read with Section 139 of the Act stood complied with and there is no need to levy penalty under Section 271B of the Act. In fact, similar issue was subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

S 1081 Kasthuripatty Primary Agricultual Coopertive Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

assessment year 2015-16, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act and accordingly, the penalty levied stands deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Makashood Asharaf, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

audit report on 31.03.2017 vide Acknowledgment No.739598661310317, which was after the due date of 30.09.2016.Therefore, since the default was apparent, he held that penalty under section 271B was clearly attracted in this case. It was, therefore, a fit case for levy of penalty. Since the half percent of turnover amounted ... justice. The ld. CIT(A) considered these submissions, but did not find the same to be having any merits. He opined that the penalty under section 271B was not imposed on the basis of any finding by the ld. AO during scrutiny assessment, but was on account of violation

Sharadchandra Dattatray Mulik, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

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

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

271B. 4. In view of our discussion, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B. Penalty is directed to be deleted. 5. Appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 9. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed

Ushashree Kunjulekshmi Amma Raghavan Pillai, Kollam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kollam

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

ITA 973/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271B

order to the extent objected to herein is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The Appellant Authority went wrong inholding that the imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. C. The ld. CIT(A) had failed

Bhadraiahkallenahallidinesha, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1507/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Bhadraiah Kallenahalli Dinesha, Vs. Ito, 12, Kallenahally Village, Ward –1, Thiruganahalli Post, Mandya. Honkere Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk Mandya – 571 432. Pan : Bibpd 0214 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271B

reply submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, etc. 4. The learned AR submitted that the issue on merits i.e., imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee since assessee did not maintain any books of accounts. In this context, the learned

Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Industries, Polamuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

technical breach and admittedly, when such Tax Audit Report has been filed before the AO in scrutiny proceedings, the question of levying of penalty under section 271B of the Act does not arise. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that though there are so many precedents and settled case

Zoyeb Hyderabadwala, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 240/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 240/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Zoyeb Hyderabadwala V. Ito – Ward – 1(2) 27-32-9, Ground Floor Direct Taxes Building, Mvp Double Road 75 Feet Road, Visakhapatnam – 530001 Andhra Pradesh Besides Gayatri College, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan : Aaapz3387M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeev Rao, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-

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

filed on 04.12.2018. Assessing Officer rejected reply of the assessee and proceeded to levy Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 240/VIZ/2024 Zoyeb Hyderabadwala of penalty under section 271B of the Act @ one-half percent of the total turnover subject to maximum penalty Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order

Ratan Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(5), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ratan Chakraborty I.T.O., Wd 50(5), C/O S.N. Ghosh & Income Tax Office, Associates, Advocates 2, Ds-4, Uttarapan Garstin Place, Complex, Ultadanga, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suit No. 203, Maniktala Civic Centre, Off Hare Street, Kolkata 700 Kolkata-700 054 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adnpc1879R Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.08.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

learned Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verification. He further submitted that since the transactions do not pertain to the assessee, levying of penalty under Section 271B of the Act is not in accordance with the law. 04. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting ... rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with Ratan Chakraborty; A.Y. 17-18 the levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act imposed on the assessee for not getting the books of account audited under Section 44AB of the Act. We note that

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

nowhere requires that unlike the penalty under section 271(1)(c) which has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding, the penalty under section 271B also has to be initiated in the course of any proceeding. The penalty under section 271B relates to not getting the accounts audited ... after that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB and therefore, in the instant case, imposition of penalty under section 271B was erroneous on account of violation of section 44AA by assessee, as penalty was prescribed under section 271A. In Commissioner of Income