← All Phrases

“failure to get accounts audited”

PenaltySection 271BSection 271B55 judgments

The decision most relied on for failure to get accounts audited is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691), cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on failure to get accounts audited

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.

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.

Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT
256 ITR 20 · 2002 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Books of account include electronic records and are maintained to provide credible financial data for tax returns and to determine income. Penalty under section 271B for not getting accounts audited is applicable only when accounts are maintained, whereas section 271A applies if no accounts are maintained at all.

Judgments citing failure to get accounts audited

Akheto Yepthomi, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dimapur

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 246/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

accounts for the purpose of filing income tax return for the assessment year under consideration, the contentions are not accepted as the failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act and failure to keep maintained books of account u/s 44AA of the Act are two separate and independent

Akheto Yepthomi, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dimapur

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 245/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

accounts for the purpose of filing income tax return for the assessment year under consideration, the contentions are not accepted as the failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act and failure to keep maintained books of account u/s 44AA of the Act are two separate and independent

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 271B

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] If any person fails ][* * *][ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1507/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1506/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1505/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1504/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Dinesh Kishor Gogiya, Ulhasnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4250/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144BSection 147Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

penalty provisions are quasi-criminal in nature and must be strictly construed. Section 271B can be invoked only where there is a failure to get accounts audited “as required" under section 44AB. Thus, the existence of an enforceable obligation under section 44AB is a sine qua non for levy

Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Bhadravathi vs. ITO Ward-1 Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1459/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sachin S Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

accepting the returned income. 3.1 Further, the penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act was initiated vide notice dated 14.8.2024 for failure to get accounts audited or failure to furnish a report of such report as required u/s 44AB of the Act. The assessee during the course of penalty proceedings ... date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Hiraben Rajubhai Bokhiriya, Porbandar vs. Individual, Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.293/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

penalty of 0.5% of turnover or 1,50,000/- whichever is lower. However, the penalty of 1.5% has been imposed. 3. The failure to get accounts audited was not deliberate or intentional but arose from a genuine & reasonable interpretation of the law, as recognized u/s 273B which provides relief from

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

required u/s 44AB of the IT Act” (emphasis supplied). The applicable limb i.e. whether the A.O. construed it to be a failure to get accounts audited or whether the A.O. was considering the non-furnishing of audit report is not specified. A copy of this notice dated 16.08.2022 is enclosed ... felt that assessee's reply was devoid of any justification / reason for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB OR furnish such report as required u/s 44AB. Surprisingly, thereafter, the A.O. stated that the company had failed to get its accounts audited and furnished by the specified date and imposed

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

required u/s 44AB of the IT Act” (emphasis supplied). The applicable limb i.e. whether the A.O. construed it to be a failure to get accounts audited or whether the A.O. was considering the non-furnishing of audit report is not specified. A copy of this notice dated 16.08.2022 is enclosed ... felt that assessee's reply was devoid of any justification / reason for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB OR furnish such report as required u/s 44AB. Surprisingly, thereafter, the A.O. stated that the company had failed to get its accounts audited and furnished by the specified date and imposed

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

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

ITA 450/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153A

provision for levy of penalty u/s 271B and 44AB. Section 271B, as applicable in the impugned year, provides as under: 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1064/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153A

provision for levy of penalty u/s 271B and 44AB. Section 271B, as applicable in the impugned year, provides as under: 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous

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

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 and thus non striking of irrelevant clause renders the Penalty Notice invalid as also the consequential penalty

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

means date one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139.” “ Failure to get accounts audited. 271B. If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year

3148 Kanakkampalayam Primary Agriculturual Cooperative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1187/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1187/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A IJFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

return of income on 09.03.2019 declaring total income at Nil. During assessment proceedings, the A.O levied penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited within the time prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee holding that ... heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O levied the penalty u/s. 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited within the time prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act. However, assessee has offered explanation which appears bonafide, as the audit process and report

West Coast Fine Foods (India) Private Limited, Andheri, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(3)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1335/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

show-cause notice initiating penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 271B read as under: “Failure to get accounts audited. 271B. If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year

Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Abdulla Kattil Kottur Mp3/562 Selected Plaza Near Panchayath Mannarkad Ito Vs. Palakkad District Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 678 582 Palakkad Pan No :Azrpa9183C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 26.7.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067077218(1) For The Ay 2017- 18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 2 Of 10 Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 3 Of 10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80D

date one month prior to] the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. 271B. [ Failure to get accounts audited. [Inserted by Act 21 of 1984, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.1985).] - If any person fails ][* * *] [ Omitted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 21 (w.e.f

Shanvaj Hussin, Khargone vs. ITO, Khargone

ITA 504/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shanvaj Hussain, Income Tax Officer, 5, New Sabji Mandi, Khargone बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afkph8029P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246Section 250Section 253Section 271BSection 44A

after the aforesaid assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty of Rs.81,900/- u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited as is required u/s 44AB of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him. The Gross ... erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 81,900/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited as required under section 44AB of the Act by completely overlooking the fact that the gross receipts of the business carried