← 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

Vighnahartha Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (Exemption) Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3324/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifiaur Rahmanvighnahartha Trust, Vs. Dcit(Exemp)C-2, 1605/1606, Hurrah Cumballa Hill, Building City Of Joy, Mntl Te Building, Mulund West, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400080. Dr G.D Marg, Mumbai- 400026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatv8040K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal.Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjwalkumarchavhan.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) – Delhi / Cit(A) U/S 271B & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri UjjwalkumarChavhan.Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 263Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

assessment order dated 22.03.2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, during the course of which the penalty proceedings to levy penalty under section 271B have been initiated. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Officer had already framed an order dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein he did not initiate any penalty under section 271B of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty