“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

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/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

Naresh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Charkhi Dadri, Haryana

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

ITA 122/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. After considering the details submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by Assessing Officer.

Section 271BSection 271DSection 44A

Order has been passed without jurisdiction 3. That it is not mandatory, but a discretionary power conferred upon the AO to levy the penalty under Section 271B of the Act. That the penalty under Section 271B is neither automatic nor obligatory. 4. That the appellant has not file ... ITAT Rajkot) (Para 8). (Page 59). 6. That it is not mandatory, but a discretionary power conferred upon the AO to levy the penalty under Section 271B of the Act. That the penalty under Section 271B is neither automatic nor obligatory. The appellant has relied upon the following case laws

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer - 7(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3098/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 4Section 44A

profession". Once that was so, it could not be said that the provisions of Section 44AB were applicable and as a sequel thereto, penalty under Section 271B of the Act was not leviable. The Tribunal had rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 12. In view

Anita Yogish Pai, Kannur vs. NFAC, Kannur

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

ITA 287/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anita Yogish Pai, Vs. Ito, Kcp13, 200A M/S. N. S. Pai Petroleum, Ward –1 & Tps, Keezhur, Iritty, Kannur. Kannur – 670 703, Kerala. Pan : Anypp 6710 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Jayaganesh, Dr(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Jayaganesh, DR(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

within the due date prescribed. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued directing the assessee to explain as to why penalty under section 271B of the Act ought not to be imposed in the instant case. In response to the same, assessee furnished reply stating that assessee’s accountant ... collect the details of other income. 4. However, the reply submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the AO and he imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act, amounting

Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1181/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Vs. Ito, 1A, Mehaboobnagar, Ward – 1(1), Dharwad – 580 008. Hubli. Pan : Aqzps 4249 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

within the due date prescribed. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued directing the assessee to explain as to why penalty under section 271B of the Act ought not to be imposed in the instant case. In response to the same, assessee furnished reply as under: “Further it is submitted ... best interest of justice and equity". 4. However, the reply submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the AO and he imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Page 3 of 8 relevant observation of the AO in imposing penalty under section

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation Circle, Noida

ITA 7276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCHES ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 1160/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCHES ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Ibrahim Kovvaprath, Kannur vs. The ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 273/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271B

section 273B, the absence of reasonable cause, which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. 9. Levy of penalty under section 271B is not automatic. Before levying a penalty, the Ld.AO must find out that even if any failure was referred to in the concerned

Goodwill Team Papers Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 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 that case, before ITAT., Chennai Benches audit of accounts of assessee society

Shri Nandlal Dharamdas Virwani, Akola vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 271DSection 273BSection 44A

with the return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. 5. The First Appellate Authority has sustained the penalty under section 271B at ` 1,50,000, as imposed by Assessing Officer on the ground that, the assessee has not fulfilled the requirement of provisions ... view this is a technical violation. There is no loss of revenue to the Department as such. Consequently, imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act does not arise. Therefore, we quash the penalty order issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Act which was subsequently

Jamnadas Steels Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DambleFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

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

file any appeal challenging the said order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act. Against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned ... provisions contained in section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act and we hold that the same was rightly confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of appeal raised

Tejraj Dalichand Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 560/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Tejraj Dalichand Jain National Faceless Flat No. 14, Nakshtra, Assessment Centre Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Ito 25(2)(2) Borivali (West)- 400092. Bkc, Mumbai. Pan: Aabpj3476C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“Act” In Short) Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059124020(1) Dated 28.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: “The Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To, One Another-

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 271BSection 28Section 28(5)Section 44A

case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the impugned penalty under section 271B inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. 3. The appellant further, contends that

Saint Gobain Materiaux De Construction Sas, France vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

ITA 4244/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SRDR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 92E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shree Sai Marketing, Nagpur vs. Add. Joint. Deputy. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke

Section 271BSection 44A

raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty under section 271B of the Act levied by the learned A.O. 2. Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken ... Assessing Officer, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 44AB of the Act and has made itself liable for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee’s reply, which was filed in response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer

Jignesh Suresh Shah, Palghar vs. ITO Ward-1, Palghar

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

ITA 3832/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69ASection 69C

adjournment and therefore the AO in the constrained circumstances by observing that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain as to why the penalty under section 271B of the Act may not be imposed in this case, imposed the penalty of Rs.1,08,210/- @ 0.5% of the turnover of Rs.2

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 27(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

ITA 3688/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 xii. Because, Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 xiii. The appellant individual craves to leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

Bright Singh Chelladurai, Nagercoil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Bright Singh Chelladurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Nanthanial Street, Ward-1, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli. Kanyakumari-629 001. [Pan: Atvpb 0028 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev MenonFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 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

Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc, United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2023[AY 2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesaint Gobain Abrasives Inc V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Income-Tax (International Chartered Accountants Taxation), Circle - 4(2)(1) Esplanade House, 29 Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Air India Building Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 Pan: Aaics4348A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Akram Khan & Shri Jinit Shah Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan Department Represented By :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 92E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] (m) an order imposing a penalty under section 271B or section 271BB; (n) an order made by a Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty under section 271C , section 271CA, section 271D or section

Gorakshan Sabha, Nagpur, Wardha Road vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mof, Goi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250