BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

32 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai80Indore60Delhi54Bangalore49Chennai40Jaipur37Kolkata32Lucknow21Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Hyderabad18Rajkot15Visakhapatnam10Raipur9Pune7Amritsar7Panaji5SC4Chandigarh3Nagpur3Jodhpur2Agra1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Cochin1Surat1Varanasi1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 271A46Section 14833Section 15128Section 14727Addition to Income22Penalty20Section 133A19Section 143(3)15Survey u/s 133A13Section 24

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

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 under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 271(1)(b)12
TDS7

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

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 under the Act and as the same is not related to the quantum of income assessed

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2656/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A

SMT. BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2655/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A

BARNALI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2654/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of provision of Sec. 273B, which reads as under:- [273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of] [section 271, section 271A

DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

u/s. 273B of the Act which reads as under:- “[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 71[clause (b) of sub- of] 72[section 271A, 73[section section (1) 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 802/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 804/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 806/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 803/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 805/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 273BSection 274

Section 271A of the Act as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to maintain proper books of accounts. Even otherwise, the assessee deserves immunity u/s 273B of the Act from levy of penalty as there was a reasonable cause for the said failure provided u/s 271

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

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

ITA 273/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. For the sake of easy recall, the provisions of Section 273B of the Act are extracted as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271A

M/S R. K. MONDAL & BROTHERS,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1145/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A

penalty in respect of violation of section 271A & 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. M/s. R.K. Mondal & Brothers ITA No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4. First, we consider ITA No.1145/Kol/2016 in assessee’s appeal in A.Y 2010-11, which relates to violation o section 271A of the I.T. Act wherein the main grievance of the assessee

M/S R. K. MONDAL & BROTHERS,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(1), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA

ITA 1146/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. R.K. Mondal & Vs. I.T.O, W-1(1), Durgapur Brothers Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Vill + P.O: Kajora Gram, Durgapur, Durgapur – 713216. Dist. Burdwan, Pin-713338. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Respondent By :Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Are Directed Against Orders Passed By The Cit(A)- Durgapur, In Appeal No.146/147/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Captioned Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. These Two Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty In Respect Of Violation Of Section 271A & 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. M/S. R.K. Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Seema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 44A

penalty in respect of violation of section 271A & 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. M/s. R.K. Mondal & Brothers ITA No.1145 & 1146/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4. First, we consider ITA No.1145/Kol/2016 in assessee’s appeal in A.Y 2010-11, which relates to violation o section 271A of the I.T. Act wherein the main grievance of the assessee

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books of account.” 5. Shri Gauri Prasad Sen, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Vivek Verma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Ld. AR submitted paper

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 194CSection 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271G

271A, [ section 271AA,] section 271B [section 271BA], [ section 271BB,] section 271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FAB,] [ section 271FB,] [ section 271G,]] [ section 271GA,] [ section 271GB,] [ section 271H,] [ section 271-I,] [ section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 1Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 270ASection 271Section 271ASection 44A

271A dated 12.04.2021, initiating the penalty for failure in maintaining or retain the books of account/ documents, however, the same was not complied with. Thereafter, the ITO was changed and the case was refixed by issuing another show cause notice and finally the penalty was imposed of ₹25,000/- for failure to keep and maintain the books of account

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 206/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(4), ASANSOL, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 497/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar

SRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 207/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section of the office serves the assessment order on the assessee and whereas in this case, the assessee claims that the Assessing Officer himself has served the notice. 4. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to enquire into this issue raised by examining the dispatch register, the demand register and also whether the Assessing Officer has obtained similar